Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Bronzeage]

How long can an olive tree survive underwater and produce a leaf when exposed to the air?

I think that's a great question. Another - could an olive tree grow on a clump of debris?

I don't believe it can, and this can be tested. My experience with horticulture and floods leads me to believe the olive tree would die, even if tangled in a clump of debris. In any case, debris large enough to sustain an olive tree could sustain a great deal of wildlife, which would contradict Genesis 7:21,

Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

This is what it comes down to. You use your poor understanding of science to nitpick and create a scenario which matches a preconceived beliefs. In this case, you have many more nits than science. Your account of natural history is impossible and distorting science to support it does not help.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Do you even realise that you're contradicting yourself here? If the millions of species today trace there origin back to a few hundred samples on the ark, there gotta be a biological mechanism that can start with a single organism and evolve it into many different animals. Your Biblical "explanation" doesn't get rid of any of the problems, real or alleged, and just adds another one through its tight time constraints.

The distinction here is that speciation is contained from the ark forward. All the canine species can be traced to the pair of canines that walked off the ark. Same for felines, etc.

The issue with regard to evolution is whether a non-canine, non-feline, non-whatever organism can evolve into canines, felines, etc. For this outcome, there is no demonstrated biological process although there is speculation on the part of evolutionists on how this might happen.

Wrong. There's no qualitative leap between the species we choose to label as canines and the species we choose to label as felines (or pinnipeds, or mustelids). The same processes we need to account for common ancestry of all canine species are sufficient to account for common ancestry of all carnivorans. You need to add assumptions to exclude the latter.

 

[Jokodo]

In other words, it's still the same old argument from ignorance you've been making all along.

Kinda novel way to describe Science and Nature magazines.

But a standard way of describing how you attempt to utilize actual science to support your superstition.

Aren't we all relying on the science community's research for support for our claims - whether creationist or evolutionist? We all review the same research to see which position it supports.

When was the last time your reviewed research to see which position it supports? Honestly?

As opposed to seeing how it can be twisted to support your preconceived position.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Theories are accepted as theories until they are actually shown to not match reality.

Not exactly. We start with speculation (I wonder if...) that then becomes hypothesis (Hmmm, this speculation seems consistent with what we know.).

We start with observations. And then speculate on what may be behind them.

Then scientific research enters the picture.

Heh.
You're already several steps into the scientific method at this point.

If, after some critical mass of research, the hypothesis is maintained, it is elevated to theory.

HAHAHAHAHA! A critical mass of research!
Um...no. It's not based on a critical amss of research. It's based on how hard everyone works to disprove it or find evidence that it can't account for.
As long as it fits the observations made, it's a theory.

In the case of evolution, speciation has been elevated to theory as many experiments support it.

Speciation is a theory? I thought it was an observation.

The idea of one organism evolving into another organism is still speculation because no known biological process can account for such evolution and no experiment has established that there is such a process.

See, now you're into the preaching.

When people say that evolution is fact,

When they say that, they're talking about the real evolution. Not your misunderstanding of it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Aren't we all relying on the science community's research for support for our claims - whether creationist or evolutionist? We all review the same research to see which position it supports.

But no, that's not what you're doing.
Science is not baffled, boggled, blown away, reduced by, afraid of or unable to cope with complexity.

YOU see the word in any summary or quote and take an entirely unsupported meaning out of it. And boast it as an argument from ignorance.

It's quote mining, pure and simple and dishonest.

 

[Kharakov]

Just need someone to devise the experiments to investigate if insects can survive floods.

I call this remarkable survival device a "log".

And how many insects can last ten months on a "log?"

I thought the whole point was that those that were in sects were destroyed by the flood (or kin dealt with the pests in other ways).

Hey kid, you want a toy?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I thought the whole point was that those that were in sects were destroyed by the flood

Now remember, if we don't laugh, it's not because no one GETS your joke, it's just that no one finds it particularly funny....

 

[Keith&Co.]

If, after some critical mass of research, the hypothesis is maintained, it is elevated to theory.

Okay, actually, on due consideration, there is a 'critical mass' of research that a theory can hit.

The theory of Phlogiston is STILL the theory of Phlogiston.
It's just an obsolete theory because research has found that there are better explanations for the observations that led people to theorize that such an element might, or even must, exist. That's a critical point in a theory's development. Evidence against.

Now, a problem with creationism is that it's not a scientific theory. There aren't observations that have been made that cause people to think, for example, that there has to have been a global flood in the last 10k years. It comes from a book of stories. People work hard to find the evidence for that, and they cherry pick actual scientific research to find things that are consistent with the conclusion they want to come to.
It's not the same thing at all. Science doesn't work backwards from the approved conclusion to decide which evidence is admissible. At the best you can filter evidence that's 'not inconsistent with' your conclusion.

Take a look at the chalk deposits in the White Cliffs of Dover. Just how many tiny sea animals died to create one ton of chalk? And how many tons of chalk are represented in Dover? How much chalk is there in the whole fucking world?
If all the world's chalk deposits were created 6000 years ago, in a single global flood, the waters would have to have been positively teaming with those life forms. Beyond teaming, the seas would have been a slurry of life forms. There wouldn't be any room for the sea water. The mass of plankton would have filled the depths of the seas, piled up above the lands, covered the planet to some noticeable thickness. Noah might have noticed that the 'flood' never actually reached the world's surface because it was insulated by a sheath of sea life with no sea....

It's much, much easier to imagine a slow accumulation over years upon years upon eons than trying to imagine what the world would have looked like before the Fludd if all chalk dates to that one year-long event.
Plus, with all that sea-life represented by chalk, how could there have been enough plant matter to make coal and oil? And to support the plant and animal life that got fossilized?
You'd almost have to theorize that the Earth was about the size of Neptune right before the Fludd and God got a little overzealous when he mashed it all down to make fossil fuels and fossil chalk and fossils....

But again, that wouldn't be a scientific theory. There's no scientific observation that the world used to be a fourteen-mile-thick blanket of plants and a seventeen-mile-thick blanket of plankton. The only reason the theory would exist would be an attempt to make the story match the world we actually see.

Thus, not science, but a rationalization.

 

[Kharakov]

I thought the whole point was that those that were in sects were destroyed by the flood

Now remember, if we don't laugh, it's not because no one GETS your joke, it's just that no one finds it particularly funny....

Hey... you cut off the Orkin part!

 

[Kharakov]

You'd almost have to theorize that the Earth was about the size of Neptune right before the Fludd and God got a little overzealous when he mashed it all down to make fossil fuels and fossil chalk and fossils....

But again, that wouldn't be a scientific theory. There's no scientific observation that the world used to be a fourteen-mile-thick blanket of plants and a seventeen-mile-thick blanket of plankton. The only reason the theory would exist would be an attempt to make the story match the world we actually see.

Thus, not science, but a rationalization.

Yeah, because there is no possible way that a highly intelligent being could create an intact universe with a back history that ties everything together.

That would be like Blizzard creating the WoW universe with back stories and a physics system that allows interaction with the back stories, which obviously could not happen. Of course the universe of WoW, with its back history, did not come online 11-23-2004, but rather existed for the full 20,000+ year history of the WoW universe.

Wait a second, if Blizzard did this, and can create world wide floods in game, despite the in game physics system, isn't the thought that the universe couldn't have been booted up intact, 6000 years ago, totally at odds with what any high school kid knows about created universes?

Does this mean that creationists are breaking the 4th wall, like Spacey?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, because there is no possible way that a highly intelligent being could create an intact universe with a back history that ties everything together.

Oh, he could have, sure.
But again, Last Tuesdayism is not a scientific theory to explain apparently historical evidence of deep time.
It's a rationalization, trying to justify the universe we see with the bronze-age myths some people would like to believe.
You can claim it.
Just don't pretend it's on the same footing as any actual science theory.

Wait a second, if Blizzard did this, and can create world wide floods in game, despite the in game physics system, isn't the thought that the universe couldn't have been booted up intact, 6000 years ago, totally at odds with what any high school kid knows about created universes?

No.
Because you just referred to the evidence within the game AND the evidence without the game.
For it to be comparable, you'd need someplace where you could access meta-history observations that actually disagree with the evidence we find in our reality.

Does this mean that creationists are breaking the 4th wall, like Spacey?

Nope.
Once you figure that an all-powerful being has no problem lying to you, then there's no reason to trust anything, anything at all. Not the geological strata, not the Books, not dreams, not 'feelings' about how you interact with an all-powerful being who loves you and wants something from you. It could all just be memories pumped into your brain-in-a-jar, or a trap set for unwary flibbjits who don't set dream-shields up before allowing their souls to wander the pos-cosmos, or Last Tuesdayism.

For a long time, i thought that the universe was best explained by NEXT Tuesdayism. God's still creating the back history of what's going to be the First Day, one millisecond at a time. Our point of view seemingly moves forward through time as each layer is created.
Deja Vu is the effect of God changing his mind, erasing something and moving it to a different layer. Presque vu is when he just dumps something that 'wasn't working out.' Psychics are the pieces he was kinda half-assed working on while thinking of the layers he was going to make later on.

No, there's no joy down that road, Kharrie. Once you dismiss the evidence in favor of a story, you're dumping anything like credibility. Creationists only accept the 'made to look older' argument about the Earth in order to support the divine revelation, which supposedly comes from a god they've already accepted as a liar. What the fuck would the point be?

 

[Kharakov]

Oh, he could have, sure.
But again, Last Tuesdayism is not a scientific theory to explain apparently historical evidence of deep time.
It's a rationalization, trying to justify the universe we see with the bronze-age myths some people would like to believe.
You can claim it.
Just don't pretend it's on the same footing as any actual science theory.

Yeah, but the flip side of the coin is this: you can claim that the universe wasn't booted up 6000 years ago, with a backstory (like the WoW was 10 years ago, with a slightly less complicated back story), but this claim has absolutely NO credibility, it's simply the wishful thinking of a vocal minority of the population.

Because you just referred to the evidence within the game AND the evidence without the game.
For it to be comparable, you'd need someplace where you could access meta-history observations that actually disagree with the evidence we find in our reality.

Yeah. I'm wondering about the psyche of those who partake of this knowledge- the effect it has on them, and the potential negative nihilistic thoughts it might awaken in the unprepared. No need to rush.

Once you figure that an all-powerful being has no problem lying to you, then there's no reason to trust anything, anything at all. ...

No, there's no joy down that road, Kharrie. Once you dismiss the evidence in favor of a story, you're dumping anything like credibility. Creationists only accept the 'made to look older' argument about the Earth in order to support the divine revelation, which supposedly comes from a god they've already accepted as a liar. What the fuck would the point be?

See, there is a Major difference between a kind, wise, old being that weaves stories and preserves relationships in an attempt to make you happy and an "all powerful being that has no problem lying to you". The point? All of us. That's the point.

 

[Jokodo]

Yeah, but the flip side of the coin is this: you can claim that the universe wasn't booted up 6000 years ago, with a backstory (like the WoW was 10 years ago, with a slightly less complicated back story), but this claim has absolutely NO credibility, it's simply the wishful thinking of a vocal minority of the population.<snip>

Sorry, no. If you want to claim that it was "booted up with a backstory" 6000 years, or six days, or 16 minutes ago when by all appearances it is nearly 14 billion years old, you are the one who owes us an argument for why this should be so, and a better one than just "an all-powerful being could do that, couldn't it?"

There's no more reason to believe that the universe was created 6000 years, with stars and planets and sediment layers made to look old, than there is to believe that it was created six minutes ago (with our memories and the forum history created in place).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, but the flip side of the coin is this: you can claim that the universe wasn't booted up 6000 years ago, with a backstory (like the WoW was 10 years ago, with a slightly less complicated back story), but this claim has absolutely NO credibility, it's simply the wishful thinking of a vocal minority of the population.

Heh, now you try To Quoque?
But that's not the flip side.
That's the conclusion of reading the actual evidence.
Without being forced to assume someone, somewhere, is lying.

Yeah. I'm wondering about the psyche of those who partake of this knowledge- the effect it has on them, and the potential negative nihilistic thoughts it might awaken in the unprepared. No need to rush.

::yawn:: Seriously? No more original plays in the book?

See, there is a Major difference between a kind, wise, old being that weaves stories and preserves relationships in an attempt to make you happy and an "all powerful being that has no problem lying to you". The point? All of us. That's the point.

Right. Just like murder. You can take a human life and frame it as murder, manslaughter, negligence, involuntary manslaughter.... But it's still a dead guy, somewhere.

Whether he lies to entertain you or lies to protect you or lies to set you up for a long and horrible sojourn in his personal torture chamber, it's still deceit. Spin it however you WANT this putative god's motive to be, you're still stuck with using the Books to prove that the Books is the work of a trustworthy skybeast. And that's not a good strategy for any truth seeking.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, but the flip side of the coin is this: you can claim that the universe wasn't booted up 6000 years ago, with a backstory (like the WoW was 10 years ago, with a slightly less complicated back story), but this claim has absolutely NO credibility, it's simply the wishful thinking of a vocal minority of the population.

Heh.
So, like, we observe a river for a few years. We see that annual layers are laid down on the bottom.
We observe several rivers. Come to understand the reasons that summer and winter layers have detectable differences. Acceptable science.
Then we drill down under a river and find 6 million annual layers.
The geologists will just wildly invent this crazy idea that 6 million annual layers corresponds to something in the vicinity of this river having operated for at least 6 million years of history.

SOME theists will accept this figure because they think Genesis is metaphor.
Some theists will not accept this figure because they think Genesis is literal.
Some of these theists will say that the river's bed was created with an appearance of age, echoing a Catholic debate about whether or not Adam and Woman were created with belly buttons. The fact that either position could lead to charges of heresy, depending on which position was popular with the Pope and his homies is why you'll find art from a period where the human body was held to be beautiful and perfect including fig leaves to cover, not just the genitalia, but also the spot where the belly button might or might not have been... The religious art version of wearing your safety belt.
Some of these theists will say that God is not deceitful, it's that science is just fucking things up and any result beyond 6000 years is wrong. Somehow. Hovind claims that 'annual' layers can be created twice a year, cutting the 6million estimate down to 6000. Hovind's math is worse than his understanding of tax laws.
And, of course, some of them will blame any non-biblical results on the bias of the researchers. I've drilled in rock. I absolute cannot fathom what sort of mindset it would take to go to that effort for the express purpose of spreading a lie and hoping no one else takes a microscope to your sample to see if they can come up with the same number you did.

....and of course, there are theists with their own holy writ which is not The Books who think The Books is wrong, or at best incomplete.

But, hey, who cares about dissention when it comes to a popularity contest, right? Just sort everyone into groups that tell the same story at the same time for the same reasons, then count heads. And when changes come up, see if that's called 'new evidence' or referred to as 'the schism.'

 

[rhutchin]

In any case, debris large enough to sustain an olive tree could sustain a great deal of wildlife, which would contradict Genesis 7:21,

Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth.

The potential for a clump of debris to support wildlife does not mean that it actually did support wildlife. Thus, no contradiction. If all wildlife were destroyed in the flood, there would be no wildlife to live on the debris.

This is what it comes down to. You use your poor understanding of science to nitpick and create a scenario which matches a preconceived beliefs. In this case, you have many more nits than science. Your account of natural history is impossible and distorting science to support it does not help.

The scenario is that we find in the Biblical account of the flood - the preconceived belief is that this account can be a truthful account. The issue is whether this account could be accurate. Whether one must distort science to show that the Biblical account is accurate is the subject of debate and we will just have to wait to see the outcome of that debate as science sorts out the issues.

 

[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.

Do you even realise that you're contradicting yourself here? If the millions of species today trace there origin back to a few hundred samples on the ark, there gotta be a biological mechanism that can start with a single organism and evolve it into many different animals. Your Biblical "explanation" doesn't get rid of any of the problems, real or alleged, and just adds another one through its tight time constraints.

The distinction here is that speciation is contained from the ark forward. All the canine species can be traced to the pair of canines that walked off the ark. Same for felines, etc.

The issue with regard to evolution is whether a non-canine, non-feline, non-whatever organism can evolve into canines, felines, etc. For this outcome, there is no demonstrated biological process although there is speculation on the part of evolutionists on how this might happen.

Wrong. There's no qualitative leap between the species we choose to label as canines and the species we choose to label as felines (or pinnipeds, or mustelids). The same processes we need to account for common ancestry of all canine species are sufficient to account for common ancestry of all carnivorans. You need to add assumptions to exclude the latter.

All that remains is for you to go into the laboratory and conduct the empirical experiments to substantiate your claims. That has not been done.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All that remains is for you to go into the laboratory and conduct the empirical experiments to substantiate your claims. That has not been done.

Nope. The veracity of any scientific claim does not depend on the ability to reproduce it in a lab.
One compares theories to observations and sees if there are any the theory can't handle.

 

[rhutchin]

When was the last time your reviewed research to see which position it supports? Honestly?

As opposed to seeing how it can be twisted to support your preconceived position.

This thread describes research and provides an analysis. Now is the chance for you to show us how it is dishonest or twisted to support the creationist position. I find it telling that neither you nor anyone else jumped in to do so immediately.

So, we now await your take on the validity of the analysis offered. What have you been waiting for?

 

[Jokodo]

When was the last time your reviewed research to see which position it supports? Honestly?

As opposed to seeing how it can be twisted to support your preconceived position.

This thread describes research and provides an analysis. Now is the chance for you to show us how it is dishonest or twisted to support the creationist position. I find it telling that neither you nor anyone else jumped in to do so immediately.

So, we now await your take on the validity of the analysis offered. What have you been waiting for?

You haven't been reading. You've been told numerous times in this thread and elsewhere that something being complex (by whatever standard for complexity you're using - curiously, you guys never make that one explicit) is not in and of itself an argument against its evolution. Yet pretty much all you say is "it's complex, I don't understand how it could have evolved (not that I though about it much), therefore God did it" - when in reality, whatever problems the evolutionary account might have are dwarved by the massive problems for any Biblical creationist account.