NIH: 100M Years to Change a Binding Site

[Jukia]

Alate: your patience is astounding. Mine gave out a long time ago. Kudos.

 

[Stripe]

Alate: your patience is astounding. Mine gave out a long time ago. Kudos.

Hi, Jukia. :wave:

Have you done your homework yet? You said you were interested! Please tell us why information theory does not apply to the data gained from DNA.

 

[Sherman]

I read evolution books, and enjoy them. A_O, would you want to read In Six Days, with each chapter of dozens by young-earth scientists who've published, and invented, and discovered, and they all testify that, like Newton and Kepler and thousands of other successful scientists, they have been inspired to accomplish much by following the evidence left by the Creator.

-Bob Enyart

I have read evolution books too. I was raised on them from public schools and eventually was disenchanted with the theory.

Bob, your argument holds a lot more water than AO's. I gave you subscriber POTD. :first:

 

[Granite]

"Evolution books.":doh:

Oh for crying. Out. Loud.

 

[Stripe]

What's wrong with Granite? :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

What changes, specifically?

By the way, Jukia. Since you seem to be reluctant to post about even something you were interested in, I thought I'd do some legwork and answer my question to you.

Remember I said that if you posed as a YEC and asked for evidence of evolution you'd get an example of rapid change? Well, that bit of play-acting doesn't turn out to be so difficult for me. :chuckle:

Anyway, Skavau gave us this fine example. "Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island."

Note that in only a few years of altered environment, a population can change characteristics dramatically. There is no need for the theory of random mutation and natural selection. All you need to do is move. Evolution becomes redundant when one does scientific observation.

 

[Flipper]

Flipper, I still believe that time is absolute and not relative. And I realize that there's a mountain of hard physical evidence against my position. So it's a tough one to maintain. One of these days I'd like to update the Summit Clock scenario.

Good to hear from you Flipper!

-Bob

Thanks for the answer - I've been curious about that ever since that thread.

 

[Alate_One]

Well first, you should admit that my list of technologies and inventions called your bluff of claiming that the only science that works is evolutionary science.

No, Bob. You can stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I said, MAINSTREAM science. The parts of what they discovered that lead to technologies are part of mainstream science, not creation science. Frankly, I tire of your misrepresentation of what I am saying.

A_O, I put together that list in the 1990s by going through a couple sets of Encyclopedias that I borrowed for the purpose, including a set that reprinted lengthy excerpts of the original writings of many of them. That's how I made my list. There's a world of data available in our information age, and I don't have any fear of being proved wrong.

Right. Why haven't you replied to DavisBJ's post covering Mendel's views of Darwin then?

Here's a re-post for you.

It seems Mendel's views on Darwin have been a subject of debate.

The only occasion that Mendel expressed himself directly on the subject of evolution was in an examination paper he sat in 1850. Discussing the origin of plant and animal forms, in the context of the formation of the earth, he wrote: As soon as the earth in the course of time had achieved the necessary capability for the formation and maintenance of organic life, plants and animals of the lowest sorts first appeared. In time, organic life developed more and more abundantly; the oldest forms disappeared in part, to make space for new, more perfect ones. This, Mendel wrote, is 'at the present time the generally accepted view of the emergence and development of the earth (Orel 1984, p. 237-8).6

Source

 

[Alate_One]

I have read evolution books too. I was raised on them from public schools and eventually was disenchanted with the theory.

Bob, your argument holds a lot more water than AO's. I gave you subscriber POTD. :first:

You need to take a logic course then, since Bob's argument is essentially an argument from authority.Newton also believed in Alchemy. Should we attribute the science that came from him to alchemy too?

 

[Alate_One]

A_O, yes you're wrong. But it's clear that you have a lot of confidence in judging my heart since you're suggesting that I don't believe something that I just told you that I do believe.

Bob, I'm judging you based on your own behavior in this conversation, consistent misrepresentation of both my views and the science and your insistence on doing RSF shows, which are entirely misrepresentations and misunderstandings. You say one thing with a smile and do another.

The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.

You ignore the facts I bring up that you don't want to deal with, and you repeat your assertions over and over again even when they are shown to be false or based on faulty logic. You have one token retraction, for which I am thankful, but it doesn't excuse the other things you are doing.

Fred Williams and I just did a show applauding Ken Ham's article in which he said that believing Genesis literally and in a young earth is not necessary to be a true Christian.

Funny, that's a real retraction then after Ken Ham's attacks on Biologos as well as several Christian Universities as "compromisers". Indeed the very existence of AiG says otherwise, Ken Ham and his ilk believe that AiG style distortion is the only way to keep Christianity sound in the face of what they believe is an assault by science.

Come to think of it, this simple report might objectively show that Ken Ham, Fred Williams, and Bob Enyart are more gracious to the opposition than is Alate_One.

No, I have no problem with people holding other beliefs. The problem comes when they decide to lie and distort to promote those beliefs. AiG, Creation magazine and RSF are perfect examples of that. If you want to believe in six days is literal and 6000 years ago, just do it, like Todd C. Wood. Don't try and make the science fit what you believe.

 

[Sherman]

You need to take a logic course then, since Bob's argument is essentially an argument from authority.Newton also believed in Alchemy. Should we attribute the science that came from him to alchemy too?

I've had logic in college. You are making the mistake of making adhominem attacks without knowing the facts about the person making the argument. Bringing up alchemy is a red herring - another logic error. So if you are going to poke at Bob using Logic, he can sink you using the same weapon because he has been at this for years.

I won't stoop to your level and insult you. This whole debate is about which model each person accepts. I just don't accept the Old Earth and Evolution models. Belief in these models or rejection of them has little to do with intellect. It has more to do with a willingness to take God at His word. I am a person who accepts God at His word and goes from there. God's word trumps everything else. If that looks foolish to you, then so be it.

 

[Alate_One]

I've had logic in college. You are making the mistake of making adhominem attacks without knowing the facts about the person making the argument. Bringing up alchemy is a red herring - another logic error.

No, it isn't a red herring. You're not following the discussion if you think it is. It's exactly the same as what Bob was saying. Bob is saying that Creationism is a useful "science" because great people like Newton believed it and they did great science (except they didn't use creationism in the parts of their science that made breakthroughs). Well, Newton also believed in Alchemy, does that make alchemy a useful science too? Neither of them logically follow since they are both arguments from authority. Authority figures can be correct in one area and totally wrong in another. Really, why should we care what Newton thought anyway? We have far more data to integrate than he ever did.

So if you are going to poke at Bob using Logic, he can sink you using the same weapon because he has been at this for years.

Uh huh. Bob hasn't "sunk" anything yet. I didn't actually make an ad hominem attack. I simply pointed out that you fell for a logical fallacy. I chose to assume you simply didn't know better (ignorance and stupidity are two different things).

This whole debate is about which model each person accepts. I just don't accept the Old Earth and Evolution models. Belief in these models or rejection of them has little to do with intellect.

On this I agree with you, however intelligent people often choose to believe silly things they would not otherwise because of ideological bias.

It has more to do with a willingness to take God at His word. I am a person who accepts God at His word and goes from there. God's word trumps everything else. If that looks foolish to you, then so be it.

The problem is you're choosing to take a particular interpretation of a particular part of scripture as "God's word". If you look at Christians of the past (even pre-Darwin), they didn't all believe the same thing about origins. Do you admit you could be wrong about your interpretation?

 

[Pragmatic_Liberal]

I've had logic in college.

I notice you don't mention what grade you got in that class. Mere oversight, I'm sure.

You are making the mistake of making adhominem attacks without knowing the facts about the person making the argument.

a. It's 'ad hominem', two words, meaning 'at the person', and it refers to arguments that are directed at the person debating you, rather than at the substance of the debate.
b. None of AO's arguments appear to be ad hominem in character. He did at one point respond to Bob re: his character, but he raised the issue, so far as I can tell. And frankly, I, like others, am amazed he's not ready to rip off Bob's head in frustration.
c.The fallacy in ad hominem attacks doesn't lie in knowing or not knowing the facts they are based on, but rather their complete irrelevance to the subject being debated. They are a distraction tactic.

Bringing up alchemy is a red herring - another logic error.

As AO already pointed out, it isn't. If you're going to claim something is irrelevant to the discussion as a basis for accusing someone of fallacious logic, you need to offer up support that contention in the form of supporting premises. Here, though, the connection is pretty clear - AO was using the comparison to point out one of the numerous flaws in Bob's argument. That you would advance this as a 'logic error' makes it look like you searched up 'logical fallacy' on some website and started cutnpasting.

So if you are going to poke at Bob using Logic, he can sink you using the same weapon because he has been at this for years.

Since you claim some training in logic, I suggest you look at the pageful of scientific discoveries Bob thinks are evidence of YEC. When offered in that light, they are positively rife with logical fallacies.

I won't stoop to your level and insult you.

Do I really need to point out that the implicit claim that someone is on a lower level than you IS an insult? Dr. Spock gives you a wag of the finger.

PL

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm specifically talking about Yorz's signal and receiver idea. Meiosis doesn't really match it.

Meiosis as part of the reproduction system cancels out all the signaling that goes on during reproduction?

But beyond that, if we focus on the meiosis subsystem, are you sure there are no messages at all to make it happen?

But even more important to evolution, the results of mutations during the reproduction event will affect signals in the organism for the rest of its life, and perhaps into the next generation. Would you disagree with that?

 

[Alate_One]

Meiosis as part of the reproduction system cancels out all the signaling that goes on during reproduction?

Obviously DNA is being sent to the next generation, but the message is scrambled by meiosis and therefore unpredictable. There is a range of possibilities, though mutations can make that range very wide.

But beyond that, if we focus on the meiosis subsystem, are you sure there are no messages at all to make it happen?

I am not entirely sure what you're trying to ask. Meiosis is a purposeful process, controlled by the cell, but the outcome is random.

But even more important to evolution, the results of mutations during the reproduction event will affect signals in the organism for the rest of its life, and perhaps into the next generation. Would you disagree with that?

Yes, any change that is an actual functional change would obviously change the messenger RNA or gene regulation and timing.

Let me try this analogy. It would be as if a person transmitted the plans for an airplane to another person, by randomly mixing them with plans for a nearly identical but slightly different airplane. But instead of checking the plans against the original pair of plans to see how many changes had been made or what parts were mixed, the only way of testing those plans would be to use them to construct the airplane from them, fly it and see if you survive the flight.

And you might be able to make 20 flights with the plane and then it crashes due to mechanical failure, but you don't really know if it was a failure of the transmission of the plans, or some kind of interaction between the two different plans that didn't work out right.

You're essentially trying to apply a very simple human technology to a very different type of "information transmission" and testing.

Biological organisms don't attempt perfect accuracy in reproduction. All that really matters is that it's good enough to work.

 

[Jukia]

By the way, Jukia. Since you seem to be reluctant to post about even something you were interested in, I thought I'd do some legwork and answer my question to you.

Remember I said that if you posed as a YEC and asked for evidence of evolution you'd get an example of rapid change? Well, that bit of play-acting doesn't turn out to be so difficult for me. :chuckle:

Anyway, Skavau gave us this fine example. "Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island."

Note that in only a few years of altered environment, a population can change characteristics dramatically. There is no need for the theory of random mutation and natural selection. All you need to do is move. Evolution becomes redundant when one does scientific observation.

Sorry Stripe. I do not have the time to learn information theory in order to discuss it properly. You are satisfied with creo fundy comments and believe that is enough to be able to discuss a complex scientific issue.

 

[Stripe]

Sorry Stripe. I do not have the time to learn information theory in order to discuss it properly.

OK. Feel free to keep posting silly comments at random intervals.

You are satisfied with creo fundy comments and believe that is enough to be able to discuss a complex scientific issue.

Actually, I'm quite good at mathematical discussions - except for when the formulas get too complicated. I understand what's being said pretty well and can make some useful insights.

 

[Jukia]

OK. Feel free to keep posting silly comments at random intervals. Actually, I'm quite good at mathematical discussions - except for when the formulas get too complicated. I understand what's being said pretty well and can make some useful insights.

How about a mathematical insight into how Dr. Brown deals with the energy released by 1500 trillion megatons of energy along the 46000 mile mid ocean ridge for his hydroplate theory.

 

[Stripe]

How about a mathematical insight into how Dr. Brown deals with the energy released by 1500 trillion megatons of energy along the 46000 mile mid ocean ridge for his hydroplate theory.

:rotfl: You still haven't found that answer? It's been given to you at least a couple of times.

:mock: Jukia.

 

[Jukia]

:rotfl: You still haven't found that answer? It's been given to you at least a couple of times.

:mock: Jukia.

Show me the math.