Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Did any of it show how squids evolved the ability to recode their RNA? No.
    Evolution already explains a lot of things which you reject. So even if I had a specific explanation ready for you, it wouldn't matter because you would reject it anyway.

    There will be an explanation eventually once the molecular mechanism for this is understood. So far the report is only that it occurs, not exactly how it happens or what triggers it.

    Begging the questin is not very convincing.
    I don't think you'd find anything you don't already agree with convincing.

    Flying is "cool" too. Is this your argument?
    Your argument is that because squid do something unexpected in adapting to their environment, therefore no evolution.

    Isn't that your argument?

    Evolution would predict that many different types of mechanisms of regulation would evolve in the variety of different organisms, especially those more distantly related to others.

    What do your ideas predict?
    “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



    - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ktoyou View Post
      What changed? Genesis in the 19th century, or the 'fixity' or immutability of species?
      Neither, but of course, you already knew that.
      > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


      "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 6days View Post
        Excellent article!

        In the 19th century people had all kinds of ideas which science has proven wrong. For example evolutionists had a long history of belief in the inheritance of aquired traits.*
        Right because as we all know, organisms never inherit traits
        > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


        "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
          Right because as we all know, organisms never inherit traits
          6days means the idea of passing on traits acquired during one's lifetime. Like a person getting big from lifting weights and then having very muscular babies. But this was proven false early on

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
            Based on prior experience. We know men write. We have seen men write before. We can ourselves write. Based on prior experience we know that writing comes from men, the same with clocks, or watches, or paintings, or whatever other analogy you wish to proffer.

            These are based on prior experience. The [watchmaker] argument is predicated on a false premise. We do not know intuitively whether something is intelligently designed. We only know this if we can see them being designed thus the analogy always relies on something that we already know is designed. We have not seen life being designed. We have no prior experience to rely on. Nor is there any objectively discernible characteristic that tells us if something is designed.

            People used to think the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland was something that was built, but they were wrong. The Giant's causeway is a natural feature.

            > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


            "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dennyg1 View Post
              6days means the idea of passing on traits acquired during one's lifetime. Like a person getting big from lifting weights and then having very muscular babies. But this was proven false early on
              Ah, you're talking about Pangenesis. Darwin's attempt to explain inheritance before Gregor Mendel. Though I don't see how that is relevant to the statement that adaptation is a pillar of Creationism. Clearly it was co-opted from Lamarckian and Darwinian thought.
              > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


              "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                There will be an explanation eventually once the molecular mechanism for this is understood.
                Explanations aren't evidence. And appealing to future knowledge shows that your faith is overpowering your scientific inquiry.

                Your argument is that because squid do something unexpected in adapting to their environment, therefore no evolution.
                Isn't that your argument?
                Nope. You need to learn to respond to what I write.

                What do your ideas predict?
                Plenty of stuff. Stuff that I have outlined many times. Why don't you see if you can honestly present some of my predictions.
                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                E≈mc2
                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Explanations aren't evidence.

                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  How could random mutations and natural selection produce a system by which squids can recode their own RNA?
                  Originally posted by User Name View Post
                  The RNA-editing system seen in the animal may have evolved from mononucleotide deaminases...
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  Or it might have been designed.
                  Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
                  A proposed explanation is not dispelled by your ability to conjecture another.
                  Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                  A proposed explanation involves an explanation — not a declaration that evolution exists.
                  Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
                  Or that design exists?
                  [no responses to follow...]




                  > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


                  "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

                  Comment


                  • Stripe,

                    As far as I am aware, no one here is claiming to know definitively how RNA-editing arose; You asked for explanation, and got one.
                    > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


                    "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jeffblue101 View Post
                      after reading up on the subject, I found the wiki editors are lying or merely copying and pasting from other deceptive sources. for clarity, here is a timeline of Stalin's education so you can understand how this wiki editor distorts the truth.
                      Gori Church School (1889-1894) age at the time 11 to 15
                      Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary (1894–1899) age at the time 16 to 21
                      for reference here is the full statement by wiki


                      Now here is the direct quote from the YEC source.
                      http://creation.com/what-happened-wh...charles-darwin
                      now the quote from Robert Conquest's book "Stalin: breaker of Nations" (the leading historian that was mentioned above)

                      So right off the bat it's clear that this historian is refuting a narrow claim about Stalin's youth promoted by soviets and not making some broad statement that Stalin never read nor was influenced by Darwin's ideas. Secondly, the referenced refutation date is off by at least 3 years since what was mentioned in the YEC article was about his time in seminary school and not his time Gori. Lastly, Stalin did indeed read Darwin's works at his time at seminary. from the same source as above

                      Now onto the "soviet claim" that this historian disputes, this comes from a biography published in Stalin's "Glory" years titled "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin"
                      http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/

                      So in the mind of the soviets who created this false testimony, Darwin's works have a strong connection towards enlightenment towards Atheism and Marxism. So, in essence this allegedly false testimony only enhances the case that evolution was a fundamental building block of the atheistic soviet/marxist worldview.


                      conclusion: Never take wiki at face value and why are evolutionists so desperate that they would have to resort to quote mining to attack YEC?
                      "The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

                      Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 2006
                      Previous Claim: CA006.1 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CA008
                      Claim CA006.2:

                      Stalin accepted Darwinian evolution, which he used to justify oppression and murder.
                      Source:

                      AiG, 1988. What happened when Stalin read Darwin? Creation 10(4) (September): 23. http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea.../i4/stalin.asp
                      Response:

                      Stalin rejected neo-Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism:

                      "Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place." (Stalin 1906, 304)

                      More specifically, Stalin rejected the ideas of August Weismann, a 19th-century German biologist, in favor of Trofim Lysenko, a pseudoscientist who based his ideas on Lamarckism. Weismann, who accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, disproved Lamarckism and proposed that germ cells pass on hereditary information; his work was an early variant of the modern evolutionary synthesis which unites evolutionary theory with genetics. Stalin appointed Lysenko head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union, where he had great political power. (Rossiannov 1993)

                      Stalin and Lysenko rejected evolution and genetics for ideological, not biological, reasons. (Stalin was quite ignorant of science in general.) The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of moulding and improving traits. Stalin proclaimed genetics a capitalist pseudo-science.

                      Stalin was, first and foremost, a Marxist dictator, far above any allegiance he might have had to any theories concerning the origin of species, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian. Stalin distrusted scientists as being prone to free-thinking. Though his persecution of biologists and biology were particularly egregious (causing appalling damage to Soviet agriculture), he imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.

                      Oppression and murder have been used as tools of statecraft long before Darwin published his work.

                      There is no evidence that Darwin's work was used as a justification for oppression and murder. Stalin doubtless accepted Newton's theory of gravity, but creationists do not claim that Newton's theory should be suppressed because Stalin believed it.
                      References:

                      Rossianov, Kirill. 1993. Stalin as Lysenko's Editor: Reshaping Political Discourse in Soviet Science, Configurations - Volume 1, Number 3, Fall 1993, pp. 439-456, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Online at http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.c...rossianov.html and http://cyber.eserver.org/stalin.txt.

                      Stalin, Josef V. 1906. Anarchism or Socialism? In Collected Works, vol. 1, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954. http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html
                      Further Reading:

                      Elsberry, Wesley R. and Mark Perakh, n.d. How Intelligent Design advocates turn the sordid lessons from Soviet and Nazi history upside down. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandp.cfm
                      Previous Claim: CA006.1 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CA008
                      created 2006-7-28"

                      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                        Pretty sure we have had this conversation a couple times and I've offered definitions such as 'complex specificity'
                        That's not a definition. Do you even know what a "definition" of a word is?

                        Fallacy of moving the goal posts. You asked for a definition. You now have one...or more.
                        ????????????? No it's not. You creationists keep talking and making claims about "genetic information", yet not one of you can say what "genetic information" is, or how it should be measured.

                        All you can do is the standard creationist dishonest tactic of waiting a while and then lying by saying "I've already answered that" (of course with no links or references to where you answered).

                        Again, it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
                        "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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
                          As far as I am aware, no one here is claiming to know definitively how RNA-editing arose; You asked for explanation, and got one.
                          That's the luxury of being a creationist. You don't have to do any actual work or science of your own, you just sit on the sidelines and criticize real scientists as they do their work. And since we don't have full evolutionary scenarios for every biological system and structure that's ever existed, there's always opportunities to point to something and demand "How did that evolve", and when you get "We don't know" back, you can declare victory.

                          It's both emotionally safe and intellectually lazy.
                          "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

                          Comment


                          • Dennyg1.

                            Gee, I was just starting to like the guy as well.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jose Fly View Post
                              That's not a definition. Do you even know what a "definition" of a word is?


                              ????????????? No it's not. You creationists keep talking and making claims about "genetic information", yet not one of you can say what "genetic information" is, or how it should be measured.
                              I made a similar point before. I asked how we should define information in terms of genetics, I got the same definition you were given, but when I queried how we should measure information of that definition, the answer I got then was "It's not measurable", puzzled I responded "Then how do you know there is always a decrease?".

                              I wish I could find that thread.
                              > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


                              "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                Dennyg1.

                                Gee, I was just starting to like the guy as well.
                                Why was he banned?
                                "Auto correct has become my worst enema."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X