Intelligent Design stomps all others.

[kalm]

SeaGee. You're out of your league.

But you've gotta admire his pluck.

[SeattleGriz]

SeaGee. You're out of your league.

Tell you what. If there was a way to mutate the 95% of your junk DNA, let's do it for you. You would be lucky if you even became a turnip - not saying that in a mean way, just saying.

That would be the question I have to all the scientists that say the 95% was junk. If you could, would you be willing to have the 95% rife with mutations? Not a one would take that.

[SeattleGriz]

Here is an article from Discover in which they found a single mutation under three layers of junk DNA that caused a fatal brain disease.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... n-disease/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There’s a similar story behind many genetic diseases, but this one had a twist: the mutation was nestled within three layers of junk. Cartault found that it lay inside a jumping gene called a LINE element. These bits of DNA can copy themselves and paste the duplicates elsewhere in the genome. They’re so good at multiplying that they make up around 17 per cent of our genome. This particular LINE element was stranded. It had degenerated to the point where it could no longer jump.

But that wasn’t all. The LINE element was embedded within another stranded jumping gene called a SINE element. These are similar in character but shorter. They make up 11 per cent of our genome.

And the SINE element, in turn, lay inside an intron – the part of a gene that’s eventually thrown away. When genes are activated, their DNA is converted into a related molecule called RNA. At this point, several introns are snipped out. The remaining segments – the exons – are glued together, and they’re the ones that contain instructions for making proteins.

So, here was a mutation that caused a fatal brain disease, lying in the genetic equivalent of Russian nesting dolls. Clearly, these sequences aren’t junk. If they were, changing that A to a G would have no effect. So what are they doing?

[youngterrier]

by the way, for a semi-bump, I'll address the "junk DNA," that was brought up earlier, but only because I read something about it earlier today.

95% of our DNA is meaningless, but only in the sense that, if it mutates, it does nothing abnormal genetically. For example, it's like this word is the DNA, and this word is the mutation. The "message" sent, is still "word" and the fact that it's written differently does not take away from the message. In a sense, it absolutely doesn't matter if 95% of your DNA mutate, because it will not change everything. That's why it is "junk DNA," as you call it. It's not useless as much as it is insignificant in heredity. If anything, that's kind of counter-intuitive to a intelligent design if you ask me.

Yeah, sorry for no reply. The wife and kids had the computer all day and I was trying to read through JUMDJ's links and figure them out, to see if I had any rebuttal.

As to your claim, I don't think I can fully agree that the portions of our DNA that don't code (junk) for a protein, can withstand a change in their makeup and still work effectively. I say I don't think, because that for sure would take some serious science work to verify whether the statement is true or not.

That junk DNA's job is to make sure the nonjunk DNA is expressed properly, when it should be expressed, and turned off when needed.

To put it another way. Let's say you make a change to the junk DNA and that junk DNA's job is to make sure your tumor suppressor gene(s) are expressed properly. Well, if that junk DNA cannot do it's job, your tumor suppressor genes can't do what they need to do and you run a much higher risk of getting cancer.

I have no idea whether that is the case in my example, but just trying to give you an idea of what the junk is supposed to be doing.

What is absolutely fascinating about our DNA and RNA is the fact that each different amino acid has a different charge and it folds upon itself like a bunch of multi-charged magnets would do. The shape it makes is paramount to it's effectiveness. Change one amino acid and it might not look exactly the same and then won't be able to bind to DNA and do what it needs to do.

Good article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 66_pf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My God. I am done here. You just don't get it, and I can't help you, because I'm trying and trying and trying and trying, but you just don't grasp the concepts that I am laying out regardless, as simple as I try to make it.

I'll just leave you this: For one "junk DNA" as you call it does not refute evolution, and microbiology if anything proves evolution correct. Evolution is a collection of ideas that are proven true, woven together into one theory that explains life quite well accurately. It's not a flawed theory, it's incomplete. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that have proposed things that have been proven false, and were rejected (such as elements of soft inheritance), but overall the theory that is taught in schools and is used by science is universally proven right, and universally accepted by scientists. There is no controversy, quit acting like there is one. Aspects of mutation, natural selection, common ancestors, transitional fossils, macrobiology, and microbiology are all proven to be true, among other aspects. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and if it is, so is Astrology and alchemy. It's a known fact that those who proposed intelligent design originally were just creationists trying to get their beliefs taught in schools as fact. Regardless, there's a reason there's not a real debate about ID vs Evolution, for one there isn't one, and for two, those who disagree with the universally accepted truths of current evolutionary theory either down understand it or are presupposed by religious belief otherwise. I may be coming off as a total prick, but these aspects really aren't up for debate and proposing otherwise and having "both sides taught" is akin to having the views holocaust deniers being taught in schools.

[SeattleGriz]

Yeah, sorry for no reply. The wife and kids had the computer all day and I was trying to read through JUMDJ's links and figure them out, to see if I had any rebuttal.

As to your claim, I don't think I can fully agree that the portions of our DNA that don't code (junk) for a protein, can withstand a change in their makeup and still work effectively. I say I don't think, because that for sure would take some serious science work to verify whether the statement is true or not.

That junk DNA's job is to make sure the nonjunk DNA is expressed properly, when it should be expressed, and turned off when needed.

To put it another way. Let's say you make a change to the junk DNA and that junk DNA's job is to make sure your tumor suppressor gene(s) are expressed properly. Well, if that junk DNA cannot do it's job, your tumor suppressor genes can't do what they need to do and you run a much higher risk of getting cancer.

I have no idea whether that is the case in my example, but just trying to give you an idea of what the junk is supposed to be doing.

What is absolutely fascinating about our DNA and RNA is the fact that each different amino acid has a different charge and it folds upon itself like a bunch of multi-charged magnets would do. The shape it makes is paramount to it's effectiveness. Change one amino acid and it might not look exactly the same and then won't be able to bind to DNA and do what it needs to do.

Good article from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 66_pf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My God. I am done here. You just don't get it, and I can't help you, because I'm trying and trying and trying and trying, but you just don't grasp the concepts that I am laying out regardless, as simple as I try to make it.

I'll just leave you this: For one "junk DNA" as you call it does not refute evolution, and microbiology if anything proves evolution correct. Evolution is a collection of ideas that are proven true, woven together into one theory that explains life quite well accurately. It's not a flawed theory, it's incomplete. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that have proposed things that have been proven false, and were rejected (such as elements of soft inheritance), but overall the theory that is taught in schools and is used by science is universally proven right, and universally accepted by scientists. There is no controversy, quit acting like there is one. Aspects of mutation, natural selection, common ancestors, transitional fossils, macrobiology, and microbiology are all proven to be true, among other aspects. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and if it is, so is Astrology and alchemy. It's a known fact that those who proposed intelligent design originally were just creationists trying to get their beliefs taught in schools as fact. Regardless, there's a reason there's not a real debate about ID vs Evolution, for one there isn't one, and for two, those who disagree with the universally accepted truths of current evolutionary theory either down understand it or are presupposed by religious belief otherwise. I may be coming off as a total prick, but these aspects really aren't up for debate and proposing otherwise and having "both sides taught" is akin to having the views holocaust deniers being taught in schools.

Once again, you have jumped to the conclusion I am trying to say evolution is completely wrong. I admitted that evolution is the best working theory as of now, but with advances in science, they are finding that it is not adequate and will need work.

As for the junk DNA, I pound that aspect because for years and still today, scientists who where looking to put their thumb in the eye of creationists and ID proponents used it to prove there couldn't be a God. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are backpeddaling trying to say they never called it such.

Lastly, you are not coming off as a prick. I do appreciate the conversation, but knew coming in to this thread exactly the responses I would get. Everyone else, regardless of science background was going to be 100% correct and of course me, parroting PhD's in the science field who believe evolution is incomplete, would be wrong.

Much like global warming.

[youngterrier]

My God. I am done here. You just don't get it, and I can't help you, because I'm trying and trying and trying and trying, but you just don't grasp the concepts that I am laying out regardless, as simple as I try to make it.

I'll just leave you this: For one "junk DNA" as you call it does not refute evolution, and microbiology if anything proves evolution correct. Evolution is a collection of ideas that are proven true, woven together into one theory that explains life quite well accurately. It's not a flawed theory, it's incomplete. There are plenty of aspects of evolution that have proposed things that have been proven false, and were rejected (such as elements of soft inheritance), but overall the theory that is taught in schools and is used by science is universally proven right, and universally accepted by scientists. There is no controversy, quit acting like there is one. Aspects of mutation, natural selection, common ancestors, transitional fossils, macrobiology, and microbiology are all proven to be true, among other aspects. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, and if it is, so is Astrology and alchemy. It's a known fact that those who proposed intelligent design originally were just creationists trying to get their beliefs taught in schools as fact. Regardless, there's a reason there's not a real debate about ID vs Evolution, for one there isn't one, and for two, those who disagree with the universally accepted truths of current evolutionary theory either down understand it or are presupposed by religious belief otherwise. I may be coming off as a total prick, but these aspects really aren't up for debate and proposing otherwise and having "both sides taught" is akin to having the views holocaust deniers being taught in schools.

Once again, you have jumped to the conclusion I am trying to say evolution is completely wrong. I admitted that evolution is the best working theory as of now, but with advances in science, they are finding that it is not adequate and will need work.

As for the junk DNA, I pound that aspect because for years and still today, scientists who where looking to put their thumb in the eye of creationists and ID proponents used it to prove there couldn't be a God. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are backpeddaling trying to say they never called it such.

Lastly, you are not coming off as a prick. I do appreciate the conversation, but knew coming in to this thread exactly the responses I would get. Everyone else, regardless of science background was going to be 100% correct and of course me, parroting PhD's in the science field who believe evolution is incomplete, would be wrong.

Much like global warming.

No one says evolution is complete, and that's why you're not scoring any points. You say PhD's need to argue about certain aspects, but they don't need to argue the aspects you want them to because they're under consensus and you just misunderstand it. You misunderstand everything that's brought up and distort it to look like a problem when it isn't. I mean, look at this thread alone, you said fossils and microbiology don't support evolution or contradict evolution---no one can have a conversation about the subject with you when you say those things because they are false and they're can't be a conversation. One must be scientifically illiterate to reject the theory of evolution....that's a fact. And it's one thing to say that it isn't 100% accurate in its current state, but no one says it is. Your rhetoric implies rejection of the factual parts of the theory because you don't understand it. Oh and Dr. Behe doesn't count if you are talking about PhD's.

And this is a different issue but global warming isn't an issue, climate change is, and if you're going to use the terms interchangeably that probably indicates you may not know as much about that as you think either.

[youngterrier]

[youtube][/youtube]

here's a video on "junk DNA" that will help you out. Only 8 minutes long.

[SeattleGriz]

Once again, you have jumped to the conclusion I am trying to say evolution is completely wrong. I admitted that evolution is the best working theory as of now, but with advances in science, they are finding that it is not adequate and will need work.

As for the junk DNA, I pound that aspect because for years and still today, scientists who where looking to put their thumb in the eye of creationists and ID proponents used it to prove there couldn't be a God. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, they are backpeddaling trying to say they never called it such.

Lastly, you are not coming off as a prick. I do appreciate the conversation, but knew coming in to this thread exactly the responses I would get. Everyone else, regardless of science background was going to be 100% correct and of course me, parroting PhD's in the science field who believe evolution is incomplete, would be wrong.

Much like global warming.

No one says evolution is complete, and that's why you're not scoring any points. You say PhD's need to argue about certain aspects, but they don't need to argue the aspects you want them to because they're under consensus and you just misunderstand it. You misunderstand everything that's brought up and distort it to look like a problem when it isn't. I mean, look at this thread alone, you said fossils and microbiology don't support evolution or contradict evolution---no one can have a conversation about the subject with you when you say those things because they are false and they're can't be a conversation. One must be scientifically illiterate to reject the theory of evolution....that's a fact. And it's one thing to say that it isn't 100% accurate in its current state, but no one says it is. Your rhetoric implies rejection of the factual parts of the theory because you don't understand it. Oh and Dr. Behe doesn't count if you are talking about PhD's.

And this is a different issue but global warming isn't an issue, climate change is, and if you're going to use the terms interchangeably that probably indicates you may not know as much about that as you think either.

Consensus? Consensus amongst a group of individuals who all think the same. They believe there is NO God so they won't see data in any other light. You were right on in your assessment that 90% of scientists go along with evolution. If you don't believe in the evolution ideology, then you can't be correct, no matter if your science is solid. Look at you. A PhD in Biochemistry's opinion doesn't matter because you don't like his conclusions. That's plain crazy.



As for me saying the fossil record contradicts darwinian evolution, it does. The cambrian explosion goes against the belief there was a common ancestor and everything came about very gradually due to natural selection and random mutations. Not only that, but I actually posted REAL articles in which paleontologists admit to having huge gaps in the fossil record and having to speculate on the transitions. Not only that, but they admitted to having only around 50 fossils for primate evolution covering 5 million years, in which one of the better ones was only 40% complete.

As for the microbiology, I gave you an example in which over 50,000 generations time, 12 strains of E Coli only had 10-20 beneficial mutations. While not apples to apples, 50,000 generations x 15 years (human generation) = 750,000 years. If we as homo sapiens have only been around for 200,000 I find it hard to believe 10-20 mutations is going to do shit for us evolving. The point was to show how conserved DNA is. DNA doesn't just mutate for the hell of it. No matter how hard they try, the E Coli and the Fruit Fly are still just that. Microevolution happens here yes, but not the supposed Macroevolution. I will say JMUDJ's articles where very interesting and help, but at this point they are still guessing as to what happened.

I know what junk DNA is. A better term is non-coding, but I am sticking to the fact scientists called it junk in the first place because they thought it was exactly that, useless. They are now trying to rewrite the definition as the science gets better. I know this as fact.

Lastly, I brought up global warming (the ideology's original name) because the way science operates in that field is the same way evolution operates. You don't believe in my ideas, there is no way you can be right and there must be something wrong with you.

[youngterrier]

No one says evolution is complete, and that's why you're not scoring any points. You say PhD's need to argue about certain aspects, but they don't need to argue the aspects you want them to because they're under consensus and you just misunderstand it. You misunderstand everything that's brought up and distort it to look like a problem when it isn't. I mean, look at this thread alone, you said fossils and microbiology don't support evolution or contradict evolution---no one can have a conversation about the subject with you when you say those things because they are false and they're can't be a conversation. One must be scientifically illiterate to reject the theory of evolution....that's a fact. And it's one thing to say that it isn't 100% accurate in its current state, but no one says it is. Your rhetoric implies rejection of the factual parts of the theory because you don't understand it. Oh and Dr. Behe doesn't count if you are talking about PhD's.

And this is a different issue but global warming isn't an issue, climate change is, and if you're going to use the terms interchangeably that probably indicates you may not know as much about that as you think either.

Consensus? Consensus amongst a group of individuals who all think the same. They believe there is NO God so they won't see data in any other light. You were right on in your assessment that 90% of scientists go along with evolution. If you don't believe in the evolution ideology, then you can't be correct, no matter if your science is solid. Look at you. A PhD in Biochemistry's opinion doesn't matter because you don't like his conclusions. That's plain crazy.

Have you heard Dr. Behe argue anything? He argues "irreducible complexity" on things that can be reduced. It's consensus that counts, and they're not motivated by a belief in God to draw conclusions. Ever think that maybe the reason why scientists are atheists are because they see the irrefutably of evolution and subsequently don't believe in god as a result, not vice versa? This whole, "scientists have a conspiracy against God" thing, for a lack of better words, is FUCKING RETARDED. God has no place in science, and it's your kind of people who make the real scientists look anti-God when they just don't believe. For Dr. Behe, the Discovery institute, etc, their viewpoint on science is immediately invalid as they have a definition of science that would include astrology. And their "facts" are just wrong. Watch anyone debate them, and they lose


As for me saying the fossil record contradicts darwinian evolution, it does. The cambrian explosion goes against the belief there was a common ancestor and everything came about very gradually due to natural selection and random mutations. Not only that, but I actually posted REAL articles in which paleontologists admit to having huge gaps in the fossil record and having to speculate on the transitions. Not only that, but they admitted to having only around 50 fossils for primate evolution covering 5 million years, in which one of the better ones was only 40% complete.

I'm done talking about fossils with you, because you clearly don't understand the roles fossils play in evolution. You do realize that the Cambrian era lasted about 50 million years? a lot of evolution can happen in that time. A-fucking-lot. The "gaps" in the fossil record aren't as bad as you're making them. It most certainly doesn't refute evolution as much as it shows a fossil in which one does not know what it is an ancestor to whom.
As for the microbiology, I gave you an example in which over 50,000 generations time, 12 strains of E Coli only had 10-20 beneficial mutations. While not apples to apples, 50,000 generations x 15 years (human generation) = 750,000 years. If we as homo sapiens have only been around for 200,000 I find it hard to believe 10-20 mutations is going to do shit for us evolving. The point was to show how conserved DNA is. DNA doesn't just mutate for the hell of it. No matter how hard they try, the E Coli and the Fruit Fly are still just that. Microevolution happens here yes, but not the supposed Macroevolution. I will say JMUDJ's articles where very interesting and help, but at this point they are still guessing as to what happened.

You keep using definitions that you don't understand. Jesus Christ. You keep thinking a fruit fly will evolve into something other than a fruit fly, or E. Coli will turn into something that isn't E. Coli, but that's false. It will differentiate into a new species of E. Coli/fruit fly. I already gave the ape/human/primate comparison, so I'm not even going to touch on that farther because you're just not listening
I know what junk DNA is. A better term is non-coding, but I am sticking to the fact scientists called it junk in the first place because they thought it was exactly that, useless. They are now trying to rewrite the definition as the science gets better. I know this as fact.
You obviously did not watch the video
Lastly, I brought up global warming (the ideology's original name) because the way science operates in that field is the same way evolution operates. You don't believe in my ideas, there is no way you can be right and there must be something wrong with you.
This part is where you're full of shit. For this example 98% of climate scientists believe Climate Change is man-made, other scientists, knowing they aren't specialists yield to the professors of that field because they know they are professionals. To do otherwise is like telling the mechanic who's fixing your car he's doing it wrong. You may well know some of what you're talking about based off the internet or based off a basic understanding of the concepts, but (at least in this example) he went to school and is a specialist in the field, so chances are he knows more about it. It's not "you don't believe my ideas, so you're wrong" it's "I know what the fuck I'm talking about and 99% of the other people in my field with the same or greater qualifications know what the fuck I"m talking about and agree with me, and chances are you don't know the subject as well as we do so you don't see things as well as we do, so just trust us"

Like fish in a barrel

[youngterrier]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SeattleGriz]

I understand what you are saying about species and the fact that humans and chimps had a common ancestor where we have been humans and they have been chimps ever since - there was no chimp to human magic point. The point I have been trying to make is, when does that happen and why haven't we seen anything like that in the E Coli world with 50,000 generations? Shouldn't we have by now seen some change in E Coli that shows it's movement towards being a common ancestor for some other newer forms? 10-12 mutations over that time period don't point towards the sort of change a common ancestor needs to make for life to keep speciating.

You obviously are thinking of Junk as non-coding and that is fine. Just realize that Dawkins said this back in 1976:

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.

He said this before science could prove him wrong and now he is trying to backtrack along with everyone else who assumed that junk DNA really was junk. As stated, I think non-coding is a much better definition.

I will start a global warming thread to try and show you why I think the two fields are similar in their heavy handedness.

For what it is worth, I don't get worked up over this stuff and like to try and poke holes in evolution. Why do you think I am so receptive to JMUDJ's stuff and ask him to keep me honest. I just hope is isn't biting his tongue and trying to be nice. If my science is wrong, I can handle that. I have stated before it has been a long time since college and when I got my degree. All my points were taken from PhD's who are looking to tear down evolution. You say that the ID field needs to debate, well from what I am reading, the evolution field has circled the wagons and won't debate them. That strikes me as being against the principals of science. Propose a theory and defend it against all attacks.

[youngterrier]

I understand what you are saying about species and the fact that humans and chimps had a common ancestor where we have been humans and they have been chimps ever since - there was no chimp to human magic point. The point I have been trying to make is, when does that happen and why haven't we seen anything like that in the E Coli world with 50,000 generations? Shouldn't we have by now seen some change in E Coli that shows it's movement towards being a common ancestor for some other newer forms? 10-12 mutations over that time period don't point towards the sort of change a common ancestor needs to make for life to keep speciating.

You obviously are thinking of Junk as non-coding and that is fine. Just realize that Dawkins said this back in 1976:

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA.

He said this before science could prove him wrong and now he is trying to backtrack along with everyone else who assumed that junk DNA really was junk. As stated, I think non-coding is a much better definition.

I will start a global warming thread to try and show you why I think the two fields are similar in their heavy handedness.

For what it is worth, I don't get worked up over this stuff and like to try and poke holes in evolution. Why do you think I am so receptive to JMUDJ's stuff and ask him to keep me honest. I just hope is isn't biting his tongue and trying to be nice. If my science is wrong, I can handle that. I have stated before it has been a long time since college and when I got my degree. All my points were taken from PhD's who are looking to tear down evolution. You say that the ID field needs to debate, well from what I am reading, the evolution field has circled the wagons and won't debate them. That strikes me as being against the principals of science. Propose a theory and defend it against all attacks.

To your first point, the DNA of the E Coli was significantly different from the common ancestor. To what I've what I've bolded, I really just have to ask...what would you have expected the DNA to look like? I mean, there was significant differences and you're being really clear here. Many Creationists/IDers use the argument that it's not a new "kind" of organism and you really have to define what that "kind" is that you're looking for. Either the "kind" you're looking for isn't what is postulated by evolutionary theory or it is and it hasn't been explained yet.

The thing with intelligent design and debating scientific theories is that they aren't debated in a debate format-that's unproductive, they are debated in the realm of peer reviewed papers. The funny thing is that in the last 20 years, only 3 papers have been written on ID (while 8 have been written in criticism on ID) while there have been 150,000 papers on evolution. Intelligent Design, when you research the background of it's origins, is really just souped up creationism. Literally, in the ID book "People and Pandas" the author in an early draft used the term "creation" quite frequently, only to replace it with "intelligent design." Additionally, IDers such as Dr. Behe make claims about evolution that are just not true from irreducible complexity in the nervous system and the flagellum, etc. to a host of other things. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory simply because it is not testable and if anything it points to what we don't know.....which doesn't disprove anything. The main problem with evolution in its teaching is that most people misunderstand it and that is on the fault of the creationists and IDers who distort the perception of the theory with false or misleading claims.

In contrast, Darwinian evolution is a well supported theory, which when put into practice has made correct predictions about reality when put into practice especially in the medical field. The facts about evolution that are taught in schools are well supported and will most likely never be contradicted nor disproven. The problem that I, among others, have with those who deny or try to poke holes in evolution is that they try to poke holes in things that don't and won't have holes in them, for example the fossil record or microbiology in support of the current theory. When you suggest otherwise, it frustrates me greatly because it's just not true. One of the main reasons you don't see debates about these things are because there is no debate. Heck, most of the ID advocates won't go under oath to defend their position. I think the ID movement attests more to ignorance of what Darwinism implies and explains than of actual controversy.

[mainejeff]

The Earth is how many million years old?

The Bible is 2012 years old.

'Nough said.

[SeattleGriz]

The Earth is how many million years old?

The Bible is 2012 years old.

'Nough said.

You're confusing creationism with ID. While some say that ID is the new creationism, the two still differ in how old they state the Earth to be.

Creationism = 6,000 yrs.
ID = 3.5 billion or whatever the latest dating model says.

[youngterrier]

The Earth is how many million years old?

The Bible is 2012 years old.

'Nough said.

You're confusing creationism with ID. While some say that ID is the new creationism, the two still differ in how old they state the Earth to be.

Creationism = 6,000 yrs.
ID = 3.5 billion or whatever the latest dating model says.

and that's about the only difference.....look up the history of the ID movement

[JohnStOnge]

For your example, scientifically, we can't say that there are LGM on the moon because there is no evidence to support the claim. If one can show evidence, it is accepted, but that evidence must be falsifiable. What's the evidence between falsifiable evidence and not-falsifiable evidence? If his evidence was that they were there, but whenever you look at it from a camera, with your eyes, or made any attempt to verify their existence they disappeared, that wouldn't be falsifiable because there's absolutely no way at which we could establish their existence outside of the perspective of one person.

The situation you descirbed is not presenting evidence. It's an unsubstantiated claim. YT, I don't know what I have to do to make you understand that "falsifiability" is not a rule of science but I'll try one more time. Here is the basic scientific method (from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... l#Heading6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

It's an affirmation process; not a "falsification" process. A lecture by Karl Popper on his "falsifiability" outlook is at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pop ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Scroll down to his key premesis, which you will see listed as numbers 1 through 7.

The very first one is "It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations." That is nonsense. It is not "easy" to verify "nearly every theory" if one follows the rules. It may be relatively easy to pick and choose anecdotes which appear to support a theory or a hypothesis. But it's not easy to follow the rules and develop sufficient evidence. For example, if I decide I want to show that table salt accellerates hair growth, I'm going to have to design an experiment to show that. I'm going to have to randomly assign the table salt treatment to experimental subjects and randomly assign "control" status to other subjects. Then I'm going to have to apply a statistical hypothesis test and demonstrate a "significant" difference between the grouos. After that, before the idea is accepted, there are going to have to be additional experiments consistently yielding the same basic result.

And you know what's probably going to happen? I'm probably not going to succeed in supporting the idea that table salt accellerates hair growth.

Under no circumstances, by the way, could we say that the idea that table salt accellerates hair growth had been "falsified." All you're suppopsed to say when a statistical experiment fails to infer the effect you hoped to infer is that it did not yield sufficient evidence to infer the effect. It can never legitimately be said to have inferred "no effect."

Beyond that, this thing about not being "science" because there is no potential for falsification is pretty obviously false. Take a look at this: http://news.discovery.com/space/could-s ... 10608.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

The proposition that extra terrestial life exists is not falsifiable. And if we never find life on, say, Enceladus, that won't falsify the proposition. But would we ever say that discussion of the possibility of extra terrestial life doesn't belong in a science class because the idea that life exists elsewhere isn't falsifiable? Of COURSE we wouldn't.

I suspect that all this stuff we see nowadays about "falsifiability" came about specifically in response to the "Intelligent Design" proposition to support taking the position that investigating the possibility of "Intelligent Design" can't be science.

But if people want to exclude "Intelligent Design" as "science," they need to come up with something better than that falsifiability thing.

[JohnStOnge]

The Earth is how many million years old?

If those of us who study such things are correct it's somewhere around 4,500 to 4,600 million years old (i.e,, 4.5 to 4.6 billion).

[JohnStOnge]

This paper examined how single cell algae can form multicellular groups (up to 50,000) where the cells then developed into specific cell lineages, such as germ cell lines.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 6.abstract

What I see when I click that link is an abstract that appears to go with a study where molecular biology was used to estimate that Volvox evolved from single celled ancestors earlier than previously thought. It does not appear to be an instance of actually seeing anything develop from a population of single celled organisms. It's talking about something the authors believe happened 200 million years ago and was previously believed to have happend about 75 million years ago.

You may not be able to link to that, but here's a write up in the NYT about how single cellular yeast can form multicellular groups:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/scien" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... -body.html

Interesting, but a long way from having a population of multicellular organisms arise from a population of single celled organism. Looks like clusters of single celled organisms.

Here's another about social communication between a single cellular parasite that results in multicelluar colonies. This one is open access, so you should have no problem checking out the sweet videos in the supporting information section that show how these single cells cooperate with each other.
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... at.1000739

Again: Still single celled organisms.

What I was getting at in raising the single celled to multicellular issue was a critical point that should be subject to experimentation. To my knowledge there has been no experiment demonstrating the development of a population of multicellular organisms from a population of single celled organisms. I guess an experiment would not be necessary if someone had actually observed such a development. But to my knowledge nobody has. Using mollecular biology to develop beliefs about the development of Volvox tens or hundreds of millions of years ago doesn't count.

[youngterrier]

For your example, scientifically, we can't say that there are LGM on the moon because there is no evidence to support the claim. If one can show evidence, it is accepted, but that evidence must be falsifiable. What's the evidence between falsifiable evidence and not-falsifiable evidence? If his evidence was that they were there, but whenever you look at it from a camera, with your eyes, or made any attempt to verify their existence they disappeared, that wouldn't be falsifiable because there's absolutely no way at which we could establish their existence outside of the perspective of one person.

The situation you descirbed is not presenting evidence. It's an unsubstantiated claim. YT, I don't know what I have to do to make you understand that "falsifiability" is not a rule of science but I'll try one more time. Here is the basic scientific method (from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la ... l#Heading6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

It's an affirmation process; not a "falsification" process. A lecture by Karl Popper on his "falsifiability" outlook is at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/pop ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Scroll down to his key premesis, which you will see listed as numbers 1 through 7.

The very first one is "It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations." That is nonsense. It is not "easy" to verify "nearly every theory" if one follows the rules. It may be relatively easy to pick and choose anecdotes which appear to support a theory or a hypothesis. But it's not easy to follow the rules and develop sufficient evidence. For example, if I decide I want to show that table salt accellerates hair growth, I'm going to have to design an experiment to show that. I'm going to have to randomly assign the table salt treatment to experimental subjects and randomly assign "control" status to other subjects. Then I'm going to have to apply a statistical hypothesis test and demonstrate a "significant" difference between the grouos. After that, before the idea is accepted, there are going to have to be additional experiments consistently yielding the same basic result.

And you know what's probably going to happen? I'm probably not going to succeed in supporting the idea that table salt accellerates hair growth.

Under no circumstances, by the way, could we say that the idea that table salt accellerates hair growth had been "falsified." All you're suppopsed to say when a statistical experiment fails to infer the effect you hoped to infer is that it did not yield sufficient evidence to infer the effect. It can never legitimately be said to have inferred "no effect."

Beyond that, this thing about not being "science" because there is no potential for falsification is pretty obviously false. Take a look at this: http://news.discovery.com/space/could-s ... 10608.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

The proposition that extra terrestial life exists is not falsifiable. And if we never find life on, say, Enceladus, that won't falsify the proposition. But would we ever say that discussion of the possibility of extra terrestial life doesn't belong in a science class because the idea that life exists elsewhere isn't falsifiable? Of COURSE we wouldn't.

I suspect that all this stuff we see nowadays about "falsifiability" came about specifically in response to the "Intelligent Design" proposition to support taking the position that investigating the possibility of "Intelligent Design" can't be science.

But if people want to exclude "Intelligent Design" as "science," they need to come up with something better than that falsifiability thing.

<facepalm>
The reason why we say scientific claims have to be falsifiable is because if they aren't falsifiable, then any hypothesis can be considered science. Theories are falsifiable. Hypothesis's don't have to be falsifiable. A claim that is can't be falsifiable with evidence cannot be scientific. For instance, take the LGM, Say we want to ask the question "Why does the moon not revolve like the earth does?" Your hypothesis can be that the LGMs living on the dark side of the mon don't let it with their super technology. Is that falsifiable? Most certainly. But in terms of the existence of certain things, it has to be falsifiable. For instance, the hypothesis depends on the existence of LGMs. If you prove the existence of LGMs, it has merit, if there are no LGMs, it has no merit. If we send a satellite to the moon, and it takes pictures of the surface, we can conclude that there are no LGMs on the surface of the moon, and thus the hypothesis is false.

Now, here's the hard part. If you keep adding on things like "oh well you can't see them, or touch them, etc etc" it no longer becomes a scientific hypothesis. Because you can't falsify those claims. Everything we observe says that they don't exists, therefore it is false, but when you stretch it to where it's beyond our perceptions of observations, you're no longer making a scientific claim. The fact that the moon is not revolving is not proof for LGMs, as LGMs aren't proovable. It's clearly something else.

The existence of extra terrestrial life is most certainly falsifiable, and it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise. The problem is that we have limited perception of the universe because we can't visit all of the planets or see all of them in detail. If we had the ability, we could falsify it. The existence of extra-terrestrial life is not an area of science because we admit that our perception is not broad enough.

On the flip side, our perceptions of biology and the world we live in are quite falsifiable, so intelligent design is not a legit theory.

It's hard to falsify cosmic claims because of our perceptions, but in terms of the natural world, those are really easy to falsify because we can observe them anywhere.

[SeattleGriz]

This paper examined how single cell algae can form multicellular groups (up to 50,000) where the cells then developed into specific cell lineages, such as germ cell lines.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 6.abstract

What I see when I click that link is an abstract that appears to go with a study where molecular biology was used to estimate that Volvox evolved from single celled ancestors earlier than previously thought. It does not appear to be an instance of actually seeing anything develop from a population of single celled organisms. It's talking about something the authors believe happened 200 million years ago and was previously believed to have happend about 75 million years ago.

You may not be able to link to that, but here's a write up in the NYT about how single cellular yeast can form multicellular groups:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/scien" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... -body.html

Interesting, but a long way from having a population of multicellular organisms arise from a population of single celled organism. Looks like clusters of single celled organisms.

Here's another about social communication between a single cellular parasite that results in multicelluar colonies. This one is open access, so you should have no problem checking out the sweet videos in the supporting information section that show how these single cells cooperate with each other.
http://www.plospathogens.org/article/in" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... at.1000739

Again: Still single celled organisms.

What I was getting at in raising the single celled to multicellular issue was a critical point that should be subject to experimentation. To my knowledge there has been no experiment demonstrating the development of a population of multicellular organisms from a population of single celled organisms. I guess an experiment would not be necessary if someone had actually observed such a development. But to my knowledge nobody has. Using mollecular biology to develop beliefs about the development of Volvox tens or hundreds of millions of years ago doesn't count.

Here is an interesting article for you StOnge and YT. ID proponents argue irreducible complexity saying the darwinian mechanism doesn't have the power to create complex structures. This is interesting because the authors are saying that what was originally a 2 component process is now more complex because it now requires 3 components to accomplish the same thing. Doesn't sound more complex to me, sounds more like degradation.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/01/re ... olves.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The work, published online in Nature, reveals the pathway by which the two-component ancestral protein (let’s call the components A and B) became a three-component one (A, B and C). The gene encoding protein A duplicated, and two identical copies of the gene started making proteins A1 and A2. Then, A1 and A2 started to accumulate mutations so that they could no longer substitute for each other in the ring. To work out the exact sequence of events, the team identified the likely historical mutations and engineered them, one by one, into their version of ancestral A.

They found that just one key mutation in each of A1 and A2 created proteins that could no longer bind promiscuously with neighbouring proteins in the ring, and instead had to occupy specific spots. The proteins “went from being a generalist to a specialist,” Thornton says. And A2 eventually became C, the third part of the three-component ring now made up of A1, B and C.

The result challenges the assumption in biology that increased biological complexity evolves because it offers some kind of selective advantage. In this case, the more complex version doesn’t seem to work better or have any other obvious advantage compared with the simpler one; it is more likely that A1 and A2 proteins were just corrupted by random mutation. (The yeast didn’t seem worse off when they were stripped of their own three-protein ring and instead used one built of two ancestral proteins.) “What’s surprising to me is the idea that greater complexity doesn’t require acquisition of new functions. It can come from partial degeneration of the ancestor,” Thornton says.

[SeattleGriz]

That is right SG. I am totally stymied so I will defer to the D1B defense and shove my thumb up my ass.

[D1B]

That is right SG. I am totally stymied so I will defer to the D1B defense and shove my thumb up my ass.

Hmmmm, past midnight on a work nite, drunk, working on your creationism threads.

Normal (decent) person would be getting a good night's rest to be ready to face a hard day on the job hunt. Or better yet, be ready for work at a part time job in addition to a serious job search.

[D1B]

The Earth is how many million years old?

The Bible is 2012 years old.

'Nough said.

You're confusing creationism with ID. While some say that ID is the new creationism, the two still differ in how old they state the Earth to be.

Creationism = 6,000 yrs.
ID = 3.5 billion or whatever the latest dating model says.

[Baldy]

The Earth is how many million years old?

The Bible is 2012 years old.

'Nough said.

The Earth's climate has been changing for 4-5 billion years.
The Global Warming alarmist's data goes back about 150 years.

'nough said.



See what I did there?

[D1B]

The Earth is how many million years old?

The Bible is 2012 years old.

'Nough said.

The Earth's climate has been changing for 4-5 billion years.
The Global Warming alarmist's data goes back about 150 years.

'nough said.



See what I did there?

Yeah: