Surprises in sea anemone genome

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yeah, I know what they say, but the ToE does not apply to human beings. We are far removed from the days when natural selection was at work in our population.

Which is why eugenics has resurfaced.

It's called triage. It has nothing to do with eugenics.

It's related. People playing God by deciding who should live and who should die.

Only if we continue down the abominable road of captialistic health care, where money will decide who lives and who dies, and the ultimate arbitrater is the almighty bottom line.

Are you so naive that you believe that money is not at the root of both triage and eugenics?

Government control of heathcare will inevitably lead to both eugenics and triage.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
It's called triage. It has nothing to do with eugenics.

It's related. People playing God by deciding who should live and who should die.

No. Triage is a way, when there are mass casualties, of saving the lives of as many as possible. You put them in three categories:

1. Critical. These will probably die if not immediately treated, but can be saved.

2. Expectant. These will probably die no matter what you do. Attend after the critical are cared for.

3. Delayed. You can delay treatment on these safely. Some walking wounded can even be recruited to help you with the others.

That's the priority list. If saving the most lives is the goal, this is the best way.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
I am always amazed that anyone would seriously think of applying natural selection to humans as a rational policy.

The fact that it's almost always creationists gives me the creeps.
 

Skeptic

New member
The reason that the ToE is the best scientific explanation is that people have come to believe that scientific explanations must be natural.
In other words, you think THIS explanation is OK?

Thus, the ToE is the best scientific (naturalistic) explanation, but in this case the best is none too good. In fact it is getting sillier and sillier as more about how lifeforms work is discovered by the microbiologists.
Is this causing more and more microbiologists to adopt supernatural explanations? ... What kind of numbers are we talking about, Bob?

The best explanation is actually that life was created in multiple fairly advanced types at the very beginning.
What's your evidence for this?

Give God the glory He so richly deserves.
God deserves no glory whatsoever, until there is strong evidence for His existence.
So far, there is ZERO such evidence.
 

Skeptic

New member
I think that you have just said that evolution predicts that creatures get more complex, except when they don't (or don't even change over millions of years).
If evolution necessitated a drive toward complexity, bacteria would have become extinct a long time ago.

Bob, when are you going to get past your cartoon version of evolution?

A theory that predicts everything actually predicts nothing.
Evolution does not predict when you are going to stop mischaracterizing the theory.

Does your theory (I mean, hypothesis) produce better predictions, Bob?

Does it do a better job of accounting for all of the current empirical data?

When will you people ever learn that "just so" stories are not science?
Your God-did-it hypothesis is the epitome of a "just so" story!

Bob, I would be interested in seeing an outline of what you think constitutes the scientific method. I'm particularly interested in how your scientific method handles miracles.

Please outline it for us, Bob.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If evolution necessitated a drive toward complexity, bacteria would have become extinct a long time ago.

So you admit that evolution predicts nothing ?

Bob, when are you going to get past your cartoon version of evolution?

Not before you do.

Evolution does not predict when you are going to stop mischaracterizing the theory.

In what way do I do this?

Does your theory (I mean, hypothesis) produce better predictions, Bob?

It does predict the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system and the origin of sexual reproduction.

Does it do a better job of accounting for all of the current empirical data?

See above.

Your God-did-it hypothesis is the epitome of a "just so" story!

That is why it is a hypothesis.

Bob, I would be interested in seeing an outline of what you think constitutes the scientific method. I'm particularly interested in how your scientific method handles miracles.

Silly boy. Miracles are unpredictable and untestable. That is why they are called miracles.
 

SUTG

New member
It does predict the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system and the origin of sexual reproduction.

Really? Your Genesis hypothesis predicts a DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system? Please do tell!

:grabs popcorn and takes a seat:
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Really? Your Genesis hypothesis predicts a DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system? Please do tell!

OK. It predicts that the first multiple types were fairly advanced. Example: human beings.
 

Skeptic

New member
If a person will not accept any theory that has a non-naturalistic starting point then there is not much to talk about.
If a person will not present any evidence why a naturalistic starting point is not possible, but insists that this is the case, there is not much to talk about.

My target audience is people who are toying with evolution as an answer to how all life evolved, but are reluctant to abandon their faith in God.
And you will mischaracterize any theory, so long as it retains their faith in God.

Abandoning faith is always the rational thing to do! :thumb:

My mission is to show them that evolution from a hypothetical primitive protocell has no support within science.
Which of the following two hypotheses have more support within science?:
primitive protocell or miraculous poofing of fully formed organisms?

Here's a list of reasons why it is plausible that life arose from natural processes:
  • there is no evidence for supernatural processes,
  • the only evidence we have for anything consists of natural processes,
  • life is composed of strictly natural (material) elements, like organic molecules,
  • there is plenty of evidence for the abiotic production of organic molecules,
  • there is plenty of evidence for the natural origin of macromolecules,
  • there are plenty of legitimate empirical questions remaining to be answered,
  • there is no scientific reason to stop the search for these answers.
Bob, now it's your turn to present a list of reasons you think life could not possibly have arisen from natural processes.

Hopefully this will limit the degree to which they are willing to compromise scripture, which simply states that all life began with fairly advanced multiple types, and is silent about how and when it diversified from that point on until today.
Heaven forbid they compromise scripture! ... Of course, your goal is NOT for them to apply the scientific method and let the chips fall where they may. Your goal is for them to avoid any process of reasoning that might encourage them entertain any doubts about the truth of the Bible.

In other words it is not necessary to twist scripture to match current thought, scientific or otherwise.
Yes, Bob, we know you would rather twist science to match your interpretation of scripture.

The scriptural story, though simple, is a far more logical starting point for life.
Only if one fails to carry such reasoning to its logical conclusion.

And it solves the long standing mysteries of the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system, the origin of sexual reproduction, homology, the Hox domain commonality of ancient forms of life and on and on and on.
Yes, Bob, it solves such mysteries in one miraculous swoop! --- God did it.

In other words, all that "neat stuff" was designed into the most ancient forms of life that we are aware of by God, the Master Designer.
An answer with no explanatory value.

Those that believe in God should give Him the glory that He so richly deserves.
Those who believe in God should start allowing for the possibility that their belief is incorrect.
 

SUTG

New member
OK. It predicts that the first multiple types were fairly advanced. Example: human beings.

Wow, bob, you're setting the bar pretty low here.

I wanted to know how your Genesis just-so story predicts a DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system. The answer is that it doesn't. No-one predicted DNA/RNA by reading Genesis.

Oh, wait... If you look closely, you'll see the word "gene" is contained in Genesis. There is the evidence you've been looking for.
 

Skeptic

New member
So you admit that evolution predicts nothing?
Evolution has successfully predicted many things. For example:
Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

source
HERE are several more predictions.

What evolution does NOT predict is that simple life forms will ALWAYS evolve into progressively more complex forms. Again, if this were the case, we would not still have bacteria.

Not before you do.
I'm not the one mischaracterizing the theory.

In what way do I do this?
"The study also found that these similarities were absent from fruit fly and nematode genomes, contradicting the widely held belief that organisms become more complex through evolution." (The study does NOT contradict evolution.)

You mischaracterize the evolutionary scientists as having no plausible explanations for sexual reproduction.

You mischaracterize the theory as predicting far more transitional forms should have been found than have been.

You characterize the theory has having "huge holes" in it ("Such huge holes in the theory should logically downgrade the status of the theory to a mere imperfect hypothesis."), as if scientists have no supporting evidence or plausible explanations for the things you cite.

"The ToE actually explains (scientifically) very little if anything." (mischaracterization of ToE not having explanatory value)

You mischaracterize the status of the ToE within the scientific community: "The evidence against neoDarwinism has accumulated via laboratory research to the point where even biologists are beginning to ask themselves questions."

You mischaracterize evolutionists have having to lie to support their theory.

You mischaracterize evolutionists as being dishonest: "The dishonest thing about evolutionists is citing papers that we do not have access to."

You mischaracterize the ToE as not allowing for spurts of rapid evolution: "any experimental evidence of rapid adaptation to changes in the environment should be considered as a violation of ToE (neoDarwinism), requiring a new theory or at least a major revision of the current theory"

You mischaracterize the ToE as not falsifiable: "This hypothesis will protect evolution from falsification, but at the price of removing it from the realm of science where theories must be potentially falsifiable."

Another mischaracterization: "Yes, but there is no coherent theory of evolution. It is merely a bunch of ad hocs and just-so stories."

Yet another: "In other words the theory never predicts anything that would ever confirm or falsify the theory, meaning that it is not really a scientific theory at all, even though it is said to have been developed by scientists."

It does predict the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system and the origin of sexual reproduction.
Does it predict or assert the origin of these things?

Silly boy. Miracles are unpredictable and untestable. That is why they are called miracles.
But you think miracles (i.e. the supernatural) should be included in scientific explanations. Is this not true?

Isn't the God-did-it hypothesis essentially a then-a-miracle-happened hypothesis?
 

Andre1983

New member
I think that you have just said that evolution predicts that creatures get more complex, except when they don't (or don't even change over millions of years).

A theory that predicts everything actually predicts nothing.

When will you people ever learn that "just so" stories are not science ?

What in the name of the seven hells?

I point out that the article buried an UNFOUNDED BELIEF ABOUT EVOLUTION;
and you sprout out this in response?

and "creatures get more complex, except when they don't"...

Newsflash:
That was the widely held belief that was disproved -- that was the belief that was ditched...

That was the very BELIEF -- read: Nonscientific assumption in the lines of "Jesus could walk on the water" -- that was thrown away right in the article you quoted...

By Thor and Fåvnesbane! Osiris and Seth..! Zeus and Eccho!

EVOLUTION PREDICTS THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST (in the struggle of life) -- and nothing more and nothing less!
Everything else is the evidence for evolution -- which does not consist of beliefs.
In addition, we have running hypothesises: A search for more evidence.

In this case, a hypothesis got crushed..: A belief that was shown to be unfounded. :bang:
 

Skeptic

New member
OK. It predicts that the first multiple types were fairly advanced. Example: human beings.
Your hypothesis starts out with advanced multiple types as a required given. It does not predict them, it asserts them! One can only predict something from a presumed prior set of circumstances. The only presumed prior set of circumstances in your hypothesis is God did it.

The ToE does not predict the nature of the first life forms on Earth. The theory cannot predict such life forms because it does not address the hypothetical chemical processes that might have resulted in the formation of the first life forms. The ToE only addresses processes that may have occurred after life became established.

The ones who are trying to predict the nature of the first life forms on the planet are specialized biologists and chemists. They have not succeed in predicting such life forms, but they presume that such life was in the form of single protocells, because they are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as multicellular organisms.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your hypothesis starts out with advanced multiple types as a required given. It does not predict them, it asserts them! One can only predict something from a presumed prior set of circumstances. The only presumed prior set of circumstances in your hypothesis is God did it.

Correct. We predict that God did it because He said He did and also because evolutionary theory has failed to solve the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system as well as sexual reproduction and the origin of the Hoxdomains prior to the Cambrian explosion.

The ToE does not predict the nature of the first life forms on Earth. The theory cannot predict such life forms because it does not address the hypothetical chemical processes that might have resulted in the formation of the first life forms. The ToE only addresses processes that may have occurred after life became established.

Then why do you believe that all life began with a single hypothetical primitive protocell? (because that is what common descent means?).

The ones who are trying to predict the nature of the first life forms on the planet are specialized biologists and chemists. They have not succeed in predicting such life forms, but they presume that such life was in the form of single protocells, because they are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as multicellular organisms.

They are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as a single cell either.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Correct. We predict that God did it because He said He did

This is true. The only difference between bob and orthodox Christians is that he doesn't approve of the way God did it.

and also because evolutionary theory has failed to solve the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system as well as sexual reproduction and the origin of the Hoxdomains prior to the Cambrian explosion.

Let's see... "scientists don't know everything, so I'm right!" Bob's in classic form, today.

The ToE does not predict the nature of the first life forms on Earth.

Right. Evolutionary theory is about the way life changes, not how it started. That's a different theory. One of the reasons you keep getting blindsided by reality, bob, is that you don't even know what science says about these things.

Then why do you believe that all life began with a single hypothetical primitive protocell? (because that is what common descent means?).

No. It just means that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. No prediction about what it was like. However, since the first organisms we can find were very simple unicellular ones...

They are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as a single cell either.

The first to investigate that and propose processes was A. I. Oparin, probably before bob was born.
 

Skeptic

New member
Correct. We predict that God did it because He said He did and also because evolutionary theory has failed to solve the origin of the DNA/RNA/protein interlocked system as well as sexual reproduction and the origin of the Hoxdomains prior to the Cambrian explosion.
No, you do not predict that God did it. Rather, you presume that God did it, presume that He said He did it, and presume that God created fully formed organisms.

Predictions can be tested.

Your presumptions cannot be tested.

Also, any real or alleged failings of evolutionary theory is NOT evidence for your unfounded hypothesis.

Then why do you believe that all life began with a single hypothetical primitive protocell? (because that is what common descent means?).
Common descent means that various organisms descended from certain other organisms. As a result of careful observations (testing), it turns out the theory successfully predicts that complex organisms would be found to have lived after less complex organisms, early in the fossil record. The theory does not try to predict what the first life form looked like.

They are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as a single cell either.
You are not aware of any processes that could have started life out as multiple forms.

At least scientists are actively studying many clues to possible processes.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This is true. The only difference between bob and orthodox Christians is that he doesn't approve of the way God did it.
Let's see... "scientists don't know everything, so I'm right!" Bob's in classic form, today.Right. Evolutionary theory is about the way life changes, not how it started. That's a different theory. One of the reasons you keep getting blindsided by reality, bob, is that you don't even know what science says about these things.
No. It just means that all living things on Earth have a common ancestor. No prediction about what it was like. However, since the first organisms we can find were very simple unicellular ones...
The first to investigate that and propose processes was A. I. Oparin, probably before bob was born.

I obtained a translation of Oparin's book many years ago because of its provocative title. The copyright is 1938. I still have the book.

After first reading it, I considered complaining to the publisher that a chapter had been omitted. The reason was because Chapter 8 starts out with " With the appearance of primary organisms the question of the origin of life is, properly speaking, closed."

"Hold it", I said to myself.
"Where did he discuss such "primary organisms"?
"The publisher must have omitted a chapter in my copy".

After much thought it became obvious that in the preceding chapter, Oparin was discussing colloidal systems (organic coazervates he called them) and he believed that these must have evolved into a more advanced state. They must have "emerged" to become the primary organisms.

Understandable. How else to explain The Origin of Life?
 
Top