Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Mageth]

evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.
...
The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

Another funny thing about this is that rhutchin tries to use "individual animals can speciate and change over time" [sic] to support "the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today". While at the same time denying that "diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor" is possible. Yet the timescale back to a "universal common ancestor" is several hundred thousand times as long as the time back to the alleged Ark. (In reality, that is; rhutchin frames his arguments in fantasy).

 

[Kharakov]

Problems with evolution are not evidence for creation.

And quoting ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution.

Keith, you absolutely sure about that one?

Absotively.
the ICR's political and religious agendas are far higher priority for them than any scientific agenda. Thus their statements of faith for their researchers.
Their job is to support a literal reading of Genesis, whether or not Genesis is literal history.

I was joking... the joke being that certain aspects of evolution result in.. well, problems. So back to my question- are you absitively, posolutely, sure about that one?

 

[abaddon]

I was joking... the joke being that certain aspects of evolution result in.. well, problems. So back to my question- are you absitively, posolutely, sure about that one?

If certain aspects of evolution result in problems for creationists that is not a problem for evolutionary thought. Creationists create problems for society, and even for religion, but evolution happens anyway.

 

[Kharakov]

I was joking... the joke being that certain aspects of evolution result in.. well, problems. So back to my question- are you absitively, posolutely, sure about that one?

If certain aspects of evolution result in problems for creationists that is not a problem for evolutionary thought. They create problems for society, and even for religion, but evolution happens anyway.

Ok. The joke is already fricken ruined, and it actually seems mean when I explain it.

When I said "are you sure about that" I was saying "are you sure that someone quoting something from ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution?" The problem with evolution being certain traits that exist, that I won't name, that lead people to quote ICR, which haven't exactly been selected against (these types do make willing slaves, as long as you don't call them slaves).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ok. The joke is already fricken ruined, and it actually seems mean when I explain it.

When I said "are you sure about that" I was saying "are you sure that someone quoting something from ICR is not evidence of a problem with evolution?" The problem with evolution being certain traits that exist, that I won't name, that lead people to quote ICR, which haven't exactly been selected against (these types do make willing slaves, as long as you don't call them slaves).

Well, not all jokes are going to work out. They get put out into the public sphere and some of them survive and prosper and become memes which we all know and laugh at and some wither and die and just fall flat and are never heard from again.

 

[Kharakov]

Well, not all jokes are going to work out. They get put out into the public sphere and some of them survive and prosper and become memes which we all know and laugh at and some wither and die and just fall flat and are never heard from again.

Great, now I'm thinking of a meme in which people pronounce memes "me mes". Somebody had to let that genie out of the bottle. A bottle that was stored in an obscure military research facility on the outskirts of a quaint, sunny, cheerful, yet disturbingly peculiar town.

 

[Bronzeage]

evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.
...
The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

Another funny thing about this is that rhutchin tries to use "individual animals can speciate and change over time" [sic] to support "the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today". While at the same time denying that "diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor" is possible. Yet the timescale back to a "universal common ancestor" is several hundred thousand times as long as the time back to the alleged Ark. (In reality, that is; rhutchin frames his arguments in fantasy).

This is simply a rehash of the oldest creationism argument, which is to declare a paradox based on an misunderstanding of the science. It's only possible, if one picks and chooses small bits of information and ignores large volumes of it. There is no real argument here.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I think, Yes.

OK, then what's the explanation?

 

[Kharakov]

This is simply a rehash of the oldest creationism argument, which is to declare a paradox based on an misunderstanding of the science. It's only possible, if one picks and chooses small bits of information and ignores large volumes of it. There is no real argument here.

Yeah. If only creationists had some way of getting atheists to believe that science points away from a creator. It's not like there is one "substance" in the universe that creates all forms by selecting from possible forms that play against one another or anything.

Energy does not exist, nor does it limit itself by interacting with itself, nor does it limit itself by interacting with the forms it creates.

 

[rhutchin]

On the other hand, i suppose that in rhutchin land, the fact that you didn't dispute the 'statement of faith makes your science untrustworthy' thesis, makes it safe for the rest of us to conclude that it must be true.

Didn't seem relevant to the discussion..

Oh, sure. Well, there you go, then. That's why no one really tore into your ICR quote after you posted it.
Announcements from them are not relevant to a science discussion.

What does "statement of faith" have to do with anything?

 

[rhutchin]

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

Many more problems with a global flood here.

And the creationist response: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

This is insufficient. Your trueorigin.org link dismisses concerns about Noah's Ark being fifty percent larger than any other wooden ship--never mind the iron strapping and constant pumping--by asserting that "The Ark was built for stability, not movement." While that may be the case, insomuch that the Ark may not have had a rudder or a means of propulsion, your link ignores the fact that given the Genesis description, ocean currents would have moved the Ark plenty.

Here's a summary written by Old-Earth Creationists that debunks the trueorigin conclusion.

From the cited article, " The second reason they did not account for forward velocity is because had they done so, they would have invalidated the argument for a young earth and global flood. If you assume a global flood with a barge-like ark, it may have sunk."

He concludes, "it may have sunk." His argument is that forward velocity was not taken into account and doing so may have discovered the possibility that the ark could have sunk. The author speculates as he is commenting on the ark study and does not do a similar study himself to determine the long term effects of forward velocity. The author concludes, "Could the ark have survived when you account for the forward velocity? We will have to wait for another more comprehensive study to answer this question. "

The author does not debunk the trueorigin article as he does not dispute the results of that study. All he says is that the study did not investigate one factor - water velocity - that it should have, and this factor MAY have been critical to the survival of the ark. He writes, "This is all fine and dandy, and I applaud their efforts. The reason the study is flawed, however, is because they should have had a ninth motion factor, forward velocity, the speed at which the Ark is traveling."

No debunking here - the author cites no problems with the study and the eight factors considered; only a call for additional investigation of the potential effects of water velocity on the ark - and here he only speculates on those effects.

 

[rhutchin]

If you present evidence of DNA to support your argument, you must accept DNA evidence which contradicts your argument. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical.

I agree. Maybe you could start posting research results that contradict what I claim. It should be interesting. If you read something relevant, start a new thread to discuss it.

I asked a question about mitochondrial DNA, to which you have not responded. The answer contradicts your claims.

Can you repeat it or link back to it? I missed it.

Your syllogism is faulty.

DNA research says the genetic material is too diverse to have all evolved from a single source.
Evolution is not valid
Therefor all animals on earth survived a great flood on the Ark.

Your conclusion is vulnerable, not only because it does not follow from your premises, but because without miracles, it is not technically possible. If you are going to rely on a miracle to support your claim, your entire argument is now superfluous, because you cannot demonstrate have a miracle is performed.

My syllogism would be:

DNA research has determined that genetic material is extremely complex and greater complexity is being discovered as new research is done.
Evolution research has not discovered a way for ordinary biological processes to enhance genetic material on the scale required to support the viability of evolution from one universal common ancestor.
Therefore, evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.

and

The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

I don't think any miracles are involved above.

You need one. The Ark, as you describe its mission is technically impossible.

Can you substantiate that claim through your own or other research?

Just a question, Is there a conflict between, "...evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms..." and "Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time."

Not that I see. The distinction is between a common ancestor - speciation through natural biological processes - and an universal common ancestor - the claim of evolution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

On the other hand, i suppose that in rhutchin land, the fact that you didn't dispute the 'statement of faith makes your science untrustworthy' thesis, makes it safe for the rest of us to conclude that it must be true.

Didn't seem relevant to the discussion..

Oh, sure. Well, there you go, then. That's why no one really tore into your ICR quote after you posted it.
Announcements from them are not relevant to a science discussion.

What does "statement of faith" have to do with anything?

Everything. They start off with the assumption that Genesis is literally true, and their SoF makes them promise not to publish any research results that do not support a literal interpretation of Genesis. So even if they found conclusive evidence for evolution, they would never, ever mention that in any report they make, any paper they author, any statement they issue.

It'd be like letting the Mormon Church count the number of polygamists in their congregations.
Or trusting BADD's account of the number of D&D related deaths.
Or letting the Kansas legislature decide what is and isn't science.

Their agenda is more important to them than their science. So their science cannot be trusted. The SoF SAYS, don't do real science, do OUR science. or at least, our conclusions.

 

[rhutchin]

What does "statement of faith" have to do with anything?

Everything. They start off with the assumption that Genesis is literally true, and their SoF makes them promise not to publish any research results that do not support a literal interpretation of Genesis. So even if they found conclusive evidence for evolution, they would never, ever mention that in any report they make, any paper they author, any statement they issue.

Not exactly. Research funding for creation is not that much so they actually do very little research. They rely on the university system to do research - especially genetics research - and report on that research. Granted, they will report on those research results that support creation, which is not hard to do. However, if research results actually do support evolution in opposition to creation, those results would be trumpeted by the anti-creation groups. So, both sides get their licks in.

Statement of faith is meaningless, as the anti-creation groups also have a statement of faith; "God didn't do it." Statement of faith cannot dictate research results; only the interpretation of those results..

 

[rhutchin]

Still the same old argument from ignorance, and thus still fatally flawed.

And rife with errors. For example, in your "conclusion":
Evolution is "diverse organisms tracking back to a universal common ancestor".
Once again, EVOLUTION (descent with modification from a common ancestor) IS A FACT. The Theory of Evolution would be the explanation as to how evolution happens. You keep repeating this same basic mistake, either intentionally or unintentionally. Which is it?

If the issue in evolution was actually "descent with modification from a common ancestor," there would be no problem. Biology research supports this; it is a fact However, both sides agree to this. Common descent takes all current animals back to the ark. What the evolutionist insists upon is universal common descent, something that takes us back from the ark to a single organism. That part is not fact; there is no biological mechanism that can start with a single organism and evolve into many different animals.

 

[rhutchin]

evolution is not a valid explanation for diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor.
...
The Bible records the destruction of animals in a global flood with some few being preserved on an ark.
Biological processes have determined that individual animals can speciate and change over time.
Therefore, the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today.

Another funny thing about this is that rhutchin tries to use "individual animals can speciate and change over time" [sic] to support "the animals exiting the ark could account for the diversity we observe today". While at the same time denying that "diverse organisms tracing back to a universal common ancestor" is possible. Yet the timescale back to a "universal common ancestor" is several hundred thousand times as long as the time back to the alleged Ark. (In reality, that is; rhutchin frames his arguments in fantasy).

The issue here is the process that can produce the result. If you start with two animals, such as those coming off the ark, biological processes can lead to the evolution into many species. Start with two canines and you can get all the canines we see today. Start with two felines coming off the ark and you can get all the felines observable today.

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

 

[rhutchin]

This is simply a rehash of the oldest creationism argument, which is to declare a paradox based on an misunderstanding of the science. It's only possible, if one picks and chooses small bits of information and ignores large volumes of it. There is no real argument here.

OK, I'll bite. What exactly is "the oldest creationism argument, which is to declare a paradox based on an misunderstanding of the science"? What is the paradox that is declared?

 

[rhutchin]

Can science explain how insects survived the Flood?

I think, Yes.

OK, then what's the explanation?

Don't know. Nonetheless, I think science can explain it. Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Statement of faith cannot dictate research results; only the interpretation of those results..

The statement of faith literally says they will not contradict Genesis. This applies to original research and 'interpretations' of actual scientific research.

Tu quoque fallacy aside, it's a critical element in evaluating anything published by people who are under written contract to promote a certain non-scientific finding.

- - - Updated - - -

If you start with one original organism, there is no biological process that can evolve the animals we observe today no matter how much time is involved.

And the positive evidence for this claim is found, where?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Can science explain how insects survived the Flood?

I think, Yes.

OK, then what's the explanation?

Don't know. Nonetheless, I think science can explain it. Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

But when "evolutionists" can't explain something, that's a huge problem for evolution.