Real Science Friday: What technologies needed Darwin or an old earth?

[Stripe]

And you make pointless posts 90% of the time . . . and?

No, I don't. :idunno:

Liar.

Would either of you like to discuss the actual issues at hand?

Sure.

Anyone know if Io is actually thought to be left over from the initial formation of the solar system or if it was a later capture?

How about the features common to the Earth, Moon and Mercury that all but rule out plate tectonic theory as a reasonable assumption?

And frankly what does IO have to do with technologies that require and old earth?

If you engaged in debates with a degree of honesty and integrity they would not become so divergent. You work hard to get away from core ideas because careful analysis of key ideas shows billions of years and evolution as false.

 

[Tyrathca]

No, I don't. :idunno:

Liar.

You're right, Alate got that wrong. It's not 90% it's more like 95%.

How about the features common to the Earth, Moon and Mercury that all but rule out plate tectonic theory as a reasonable assumption?

Such as........?

Given the significant differences in size, composition and geological activity of each I'm not sure how well you can stretch a comparison between them without some very solid data and maths.

If you engaged in debates with a degree of honesty and integrity they would not become so divergent. You work hard to get away from core ideas because careful analysis of key ideas shows billions of years and evolution as false.

You need to look in the mirror more often. DO you really think you sit on some sort of moral high ground in such debates given your reputation of one line quips and smilies?

 

[Stripe]

Given the significant differences in size, composition and geological activity of each I'm not sure how well you can stretch a comparison between them without some very solid data and maths.

The Earth and the Moon both have volcanoes. Why should we use PT to explain them on Earth and then struggle for an alternative for the moon? Why not just use one theory for both?

And suggesting the scale of activity being different somehow refutes the fact that the same process is at work is just plain silly.

You need to look in the mirror more often. DO you really think you sit on some sort of moral high ground in such debates given your reputation of one line quips and smilies?

Nope. I don't hold your morality to account by the words put into a post. But when the likes of Jukia presents themselves as a scientific luminary and only ever posts nonsense there is good reason to mock him.

:mock: Jukia.

Now. We can continue mocking Jukia or you can keep ranting on about what I choose to post or we can talk about something interesting.

 

[Tyrathca]

The Earth and the Moon both have volcanoes. Why should we use PT to explain them on Earth and then struggle for an alternative for the moon? Why not just use one theory for both?

Well tectonics are not the only source of volcanoes
on earth. Why use one causative mechanism when the evidence indicates more?

And suggesting the scale of activity being different somehow refutes the fact that the same process is at work is just plain silly.

Which is a complete misstatement or misunderstanding of what I said.

 

[Fred Williams]

Common descent directly implies that you can take a gene from one organism and place it in another (since they were once the same genes originally). ...you do realize you can have horizontal transfer AND descent at the same time right? Scientists surprised doesn't mean "evolution is disproved!"

I never suggested these evolutionists admitted this was the end of their worldview. Isn't the point whether or not horizontal transfer requires belief in common decent? It obviously doesn't, since design is just as viable (really more so) as a good reason to expect it to work. I can take a USB driver from a GPS receiver and drop it in to a cell modem and with minimal modification it will work just fine. Why would you expect the Designer of life to use inefficient design patterns?

FW: Do you think it would be a good thing, or a bad thing, to consider the possibility that some of resistance is the result of non-random mutation induced by some environmental stimulus?
Alate_One: There's never been any evidence of mutations being induced by the environment. In fact there are plenty of experiments that demonstrate the opposite.

So you are on record saying that scientists should ignore adaptive mutations as a possibility? You are just proving my point that adhering to a philosophical view (evolution) is not good for the advancement of science and improvement of life. Just to illustrate the point, consider the following regarding HIV: "The V3 loop mutations did not alter viral utilization of wild-type CCR5, but they specifically enhanced utilization of the mutant CCR5s by two distinct mechanisms." (J Virol. 2001 December; 75(24): 12266–12278) Reading between the lines, this suggested an area of the virus incurred specific mutations that did not impair its ability to attach to the unaltered CCR5, which means they did not occur in a "conserved" area. Sure sounds like these were adaptive mutations to me. The authors concluded: "These results have important implications for our understanding of the mechanism of HIV-1 infection and the factors that may select for fusogenic gp120 variants during AIDS progression." Now if we take your approach, the possibility of some sort of environmental influence has to be ignored, as does the production of variation to achieve adaptation (analogous to how our immune system works). Even if environmental influence isn't a factor (it very well might not be), don't you think it would be wise to consider it, and do the necessary steps to confirm it or eliminate it as a factor? If such factors prove to be the key, you could miss out on a cure for AIDs. It is this kind of philosophical thinking that gets in the way of real science.

Unfortunately you seem to be unable to acknowledge the fact that YEC has enabled NO technologies at all.

OK, throw out the age of the earth question for a moment. We have given you tons of examples where belief in creation was an enabling prerequisite. You have given us 3 for evolution that were easily shown to be invalid. In some leagues when one side has 10 or more run lead, the game is called. Right now the score is at least 100 to 0. The game should be called, but the other side wants to keep playing. Kudos to your steadfastness!

Fred
PS. Thanks for correcting Barbarian on his strawman regarding gene transfer among plants. Hi Pat, I am doing well, thank you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Why would you expect the Designer of life to use inefficient design patterns?

I wouldn't. And it turns out He didn't. Engineers are now realizing that evolutionary processes work better then design for many complex problems.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rajverma/files/verma.pdf

So you are on record saying that scientists should ignore adaptive mutations as a possibility?

"Should" is beside the point. Scientists are actively seeking examples.

A quick search turns up many papers on it in the literature, the first I found was about 27 years ago. Apparently, they are quite rare. One example is Hall's discovery that some bacteria increase the mutation rate when under environmental stress. But that's not the way it usually works. Delbruck showed that mutations don't appear in response to need; they just happen randomly. What is adaptive is the increase in random mutations that increase the likelihood of a favorable mutation appearing. A useful trait, one that clearly would be a favorable mutation in a species with many rapidly reproducing individuals.

PS. Thanks for correcting Barbarian on his strawman regarding gene transfer among plants.

Plants are considered to be higher organisms. But in response to the shifting of goal posts, I checked out how long lateral gene transfer has been mentioned in the literature for vertebrates (you think they are higher organisms, right?) About a quarter century. Seems like a long time for someone to be out of the loop, no?

Hi Pat, I am doing well, thank you.

Glad to hear it. How's fatherhood wearing on you?

 

[Bob Enyart]

A_O responded to this from Fred Williams, but may have missed his point:

FW: You suggested recombinant DNA technology. How does this require Neo-Darwinism? If random mutations did not occur, would this prevent recombinant DNA from working? Of course the answer is no. Interestingly, I would argue that pure belief in neo-Darwinism would intuitively have hindered one from thinking recombinant DNA would work, since neo-Darwinism rejects the possibility of directed non-random mutations, which is essentially analogous to what this technology is!​

I'm sorry sir, but what you just posted makes no sense at all. Evolution cannot and will not "reject the possibility" of human beings manipulating the genetic code. That's like saying that because we have a naturalistic explanation for stars producing radiation, that human nuclear reactions are therefore disproved by said understanding.

A_O, I think you misread Fred's point.

I'm long known for a confrontational style. But I think that there is so much hostility in general on web forums where evolution is debated, and specifically in the BEL Forum on TOL, that it's even hurting the value of the interactions. It's hard even to give each other a hearing. And wherever I might be able to learn from you can easily be obscured by that hostility. So, while I don't know if I'll be able to get back to this thread (or the fun Baraminology thread with Barbarian), generally, I'm going to try to be more gracious. With such intense disagreements, it's difficult, and for sure, one side or the other is blinded by bias, and such error cannot be without consequence in the lives of real human beings. But TOL hosts the opposing sides in long-term relationships of sorts, and in such a context, I think rottenness hurts each side more than might be obvious.

 

[Alate_One]

A_O, I think you misread Fred's point.

If I did, you didn't clarify it. The scientific community rejects the idea of creatures "designing themselves", via non-random mutations, yes. Because there has never been evidence for it (and plenty against it), and creatures simply don't have enough genetic information to "design themselves". It is not analogous to human designed genetic modification any more than the idea of a watch creating itself is analogous to a human designing a watch. (That's something you creationists should understand, no?)

I'm long known for a confrontational style. But I think that there is so much hostility in general on web forums where evolution is debated, and specifically in the BEL Forum on TOL, that it's even hurting the value of the interactions.

It's hard even to give each other a hearing. And wherever I might be able to learn from you can easily be obscured by that hostility. So, while I don't know if I'll be able to get back to this thread (or the fun Baraminology thread with Barbarian), generally, I'm going to try to be more gracious. With such intense disagreements, it's difficult, and for sure, one side or the other is blinded by bias, and such error cannot be without consequence in the lives of real human beings. But TOL hosts the opposing sides in long-term relationships of sorts, and in such a context, I think rottenness hurts each side more than might be obvious.

I am not seeing "rottenness" coming from me, perhaps I'm wrong on this. I see most of the instigation coming from the YEC crowd. Why? Because the actual data isn't on your side. So you resort to distractions and just ignore whatever is problematic for you. Any "hostility" from me is a reflection of the behavior of your side. I'm not going to be a doormat for you to waltz your poor logic and "tactics" over.

I note you didn't take up my challenge from my last post to you either the one that linked actual DNA data for you to play with. I do hope you'll be more gracious, but I'm honestly not holding my breath.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interestingly, I would argue that pure belief in neo-Darwinism would intuitively have hindered one from thinking recombinant DNA would work, since neo-Darwinism rejects the possibility of directed non-random mutations, which is essentially analogous to what this technology is!

I'm still looking over the different expositions of the Modern Synthesis (sometimes called "neo-Darwinism") and I don't see that in anything. Can you show me that? Luria/Delbruck showed that useful mutations do not appear in response to need, but notice that evolutionary theory was not challenged by the discovery that environmental pressure causes bacteria to increase their rates of mutation. That's a useful adaptation in bacteria, but so far, the jump to actually mutating to adapt seems to be rare or absent.

In 1988 Cairns and colleagues renewed the controversy about whether some mutations are induced by the selective conditions [Cairns, J., J. Overbaugh, and S. Miller. 1988. Nature 335: 142-145]. In contrast to the experiments done by Luria and Delbruck where any T1s mutants rapidly died on the selection plates, Cairns and colleagues used a "nonlethal selection" -- E. coli Lac- mutants were plated on medium with lactose as a carbon source and the number of Lac+ revertants were determined over a period of several weeks. Under these conditions the Lac- cells cannot form visible colonies, but the cells do not die. They observed that although some Lac+ revertants appear within a few days as expected for pre-existing revertants, Lac+ revertants continued to appear over time suggesting that starvation of the Lac- mutants stimulated mutation to Lac+. Hence, they dubbed this process "adaptative mutagenesis". This Lamarkian interpretation stimulated a decade of research on this question. After the dust settled from the heated controversy, the take-home point seems to be that starvation (and possibly other stressful conditions) may stimulate increased mutagenesis (possibly by several different mechanisms), and only those mutations that allow the cells to respond to the environmental stress accumulate in the resulting population [for a recent review see Foster, 1999].
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/fluctuation.html

Notice that this effect appears in bacteria, where large numbers and rapid reproduction make it a useful trait, but not in vertebrates, where it would be much less useful. Could such a trait appear by natural selection? Of course it could. It seems too much of a jump to do it in metazoans, even though it certainly would be a good thing to be able to mutate useful new traits.

I'd like to think I'm not part of the rotteness. I don't mind a bit of Irish Tag if someone wants to do that, but I like it better if we can respectfully disagree.

Depends who I'm talking to. Fred and I have a history, one that includes some exchanges of which I'm not proud. I eventually realized that Fred is sincere and honestly motivated, and can respect him. I'm hoping he realized the same about me.

 

[voltaire]

The moon did have a short live plate tectonic period stripe. All the heat from the core dissipated into space though and now it is a dead rock stripe.

 

[Fred Williams]

Did creationists PREDICT that all organisms would use the same genetic system? I don't think so. It's a direct implication of common descent.

Did evolution predict this? Do you have a citation for this prediction? What if there were two separate genetic codes? Wouldn’t evolution accommodate this by invoking convergence? The problem with evolution is that it set up to “predict” everything. Would two genetic codes support, or confuse, the notion of a single designer?

Did evolution “predict” life would only be carbon-based?

The fun thing about this is it isn't just cytochrome C. We can make trees that confirm evolution using all kinds of different genes.

I agree that magic is fun! Like every claim I have ever seen for evolution, ultimately there is an illusion behind it. I believe these “protein sequence trees” are so egregious as a non-starter it’s hard to find them even in the secular peer-reviewed journals. Don’t get me wrong, I believe there is plenty of flawed material published in the secular journals, but at least there is a degree of scrutiny that can serve as a deterrent to some of these super-flimsy illusionary arguments. These claims instead seem to permeate from evolutionist talk-origins-like coffee shops, and from course assignments of college professors who should know better.

On the other hand, it’s easy to find evidence in the secular journals contradicting the faithful coffee shop napkin story tellers:

“Even at smaller evolutionary intervals, many individual genes show tree topologies in fundamental disagreement with the organismal phylogeny." [emphasis added] Genome Evolution at the Genus Level: Comparison of Three Complete Genomes of Hyperthermophilic Archaea - Genome Res. 2001. 11: 981-993

Here is the illusion:

1) These “trees” only show sporadic nodal relationships, most of which fall within the family taxa and therefore offer nothing to separate “evolution” from created kinds. The trunk and major interconnecting branches are all missing.
2) Of the nodal relationships, the evolutionary distances mislead its representation of nodes with a “recent” common ancestor. For example, note this tree posted by an evolutionist in another forum, where he noted, among other things, the “recent” branch between dogs and seals:

Yet if we use the evolutionists’ own citations from journals, note the distance to scale with human/chimps (CYC was picked by evos because it was a protein that showed little difference between chimps/humans):

You have to actually double the vertical above for it to be to scale.

Finally, I conducted a test at my forum some time ago as a way to demonstrate the illusion behind Cytochrome C by providing an expanded CYC sequence chart, but without the names of the animals. A well-informed evolutionist under the moniker “numbers” accepted the challenge. The results:

29% fit the evolution paradigm. Of this group, 80% fit within the family taxa and easily could be a creation kind, so this number is really 5.8% (easily explained by “noise” - a blind squirrel… well, you know the story).
24% neither confirmed or denied the evolution paradigm.
47% did not support the evolution paradigm.

Protein sequence homology such as CYC is nothing but an illusion that offers virtually nothing to the creation vs evolution debate. I say "virtually" because if anything such sequences hurt the evolutionist position since its yet another "prediction" pretender.

This bears repeating: “Even at smaller evolutionary intervals, many individual genes show tree topologies in fundamental disagreement with the organismal phylogeny." [emphasis added] Genome Evolution at the Genus Level: Comparison of Three Complete Genomes of Hyperthermophilic Archaea - Genome Res. 2001. 11: 981-993

Fred

 

[The Barbarian]

Cytochrome c, because it's a small protein (about 100 amino acids) is a relatively easy but "low resolution" check on evolutionary phylogenies.

It doesn't change at all in some locations on the molecule, because it has to do the same job in all organisms, but the rest of it varies randomly. That means that the results are a matter of likelihoods, not certainties. This is why DNA analyses are so much more accurate with closely related organisms.

Hemoglobin, being a larger molecule, offers better resolution, but not as good as DNA. In fact, by cherry picking, one can probably find a fair number of organisms that would have cytochrome c differences that would give indifferent results. (I'm not suggesting that Fred would do that)

Notice that even for fairly high taxa, there can be errors by chance, because the number of substitutions are so small. In this case, kangaroos and non-primate placentals are an ingroup compared to primates, which is contrary to all the rest of the evidence.

Just saying...

 

[voltaire]

How did any of your post refute any of the points fred made barbarian? Please explain in laymen terms.

 

[The Barbarian]

OK. Using biological molecules to find phylogenies depends on a large number of random mutations. If two taxa are more closely related, then they should have more changes in common, and thus their molecules should be more similar. But it's possible that a few changes by chance might happen in two relatively unrelated taxa and give a misleading answer. The more individual monomers in a molecule open to mutation, the more "resolution" you get, and the more accurate it will be at lower taxa.

It's the law of large numbers. Cytochrome C is a small molecule, with relatively few amino acids(about 100). So the resolution is less than hemoglobin, with many more amino acids, or DNA, with millions of base pairs.

You can see in the diagram of cytochrome c that at the class level, there is one error, where by chance, random mutations put marsupials in with placentals, but not with primates.

Does that help?

 

[Stripe]

It'd help if it were accurate. Genetic differences like these are not overly useful as a measure of how long ago two populations diverged. This is because the locations of changes are limited. Changes may occur rapidly at certain, non-vital locations. But, by definition, any changes to vital parts of the genetic code will terminate with that individual. Thus you have a certain amount of time when two populations may share a measurably diverging genetic code, but once maximum divergence is reached all further changes are simply going over locations that have already been changed.

Thus the "molecular clock" theory is flawed from the outset.

 

[The Barbarian]

It'd help if it were accurate. Genetic differences like these are not overly useful as a measure of how long ago two populations diverged.

It can give you a rough idea, but it's much more accurate in showing how they diverged. As I showed you, cytochrome c has too few variable sites to be very accurate as to time of divergence. I haven't taken a look at that, but it certainly would be less reliable than genetic data.

This is because the locations of changes are limited. Changes may occur rapidly at certain, non-vital locations. But, by definition, any changes to vital parts of the genetic code will terminate with that individual.

That's what I said, yes.

Thus you have a certain amount of time when two populations may share a measurably diverging genetic code, but once maximum divergence is reached all further changes are simply going over locations that have already been changed.

Not so much. There are 22 amino acids found in living things on Earth, and so there's lots of room for code variation.

Thus the "molecular clock" theory is flawed from the outset.

It's useful as a rough measure, but such a small molecule is less reliable than the genome.

 

[Stripe]

It can give you a rough idea, but it's much more accurate in showing how they diverged. As I showed you, cytochrome c has too few variable sites to be very accurate as to time of divergence. I haven't taken a look at that, but it certainly would be less reliable than genetic data.

Oh, whoops .. I'm talking about a different thing.

But it still applies. Differences reach a maximum and then stop increasing. Thus relatedness can only be measurable while the maximum has not been reached.

Not so much. There are 22 amino acids found in living things on Earth, and so there's lots of room for code variation.

That there is lots of room does not negate what I said. Some changes cannot be made because they are terminal in the individual that has them - thus they will never become established.

It's useful as a rough measure, but such a small molecule is less reliable than the genome.

Only if maximum divergence has not been reached and only if you can show that it has not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian
It can give you a rough idea, but it's much more accurate in showing how they diverged. As I showed you, cytochrome c has too few variable sites to be very accurate as to time of divergence. I haven't taken a look at that, but it certainly would be less reliable than genetic data.

Oh, whoops .. I'm talking about a different thing.

So neither of us know what you're talking about, then.

But it still applies. Differences reach a maximum and then stop increasing.

(Barbarian checks)
As of now, cytochrome c differs by maxmum of 28 nucleotides (neurospora) to .02 (monkeys). Effectively a resolution of 0 to about 125. Not bad, but as you learned, hemoglobin is much better, and DNA is very much better.

Thus relatedness can only be measurable while the maximum has not been reached.

Show us the maximum, and which parts of the cladogram have reached it.

Barbarian chuckles:
Not so much. There are 22 amino acids found in living things on Earth, and so there's lots of room for code variation.

That there is lots of room does not negate what I said.

That's a testable claim. Show us which of the organisms on the cladogram have reached their maximum difference, and your evidence for this claim.

Some changes cannot be made because they are terminal in the individual that has them - thus they will never become established.

That's called a "lethal mutation." Show us which organisms in the cladogram have those.

Barbarian observes:
It's useful as a rough measure, but such a small molecule is less reliable than the genome.

Only if maximum divergence has not been reached and only if you can show that it has not.

Show us which of them have reached their maximum divergence. If you claim an effect, it is not up to anyone to prove it doesn't exist. It's up to you to prove it exists. Show us which organisms have reached their maximum differences, and your evidence for this.

 

[voltaire]

Can you give me a link to that diagram of cytochrone C phylogeny barbarian?

 

[The Barbarian]

http://www.britannica.com/bps/media-view/121497/1/0/0