Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Oh. That's easy:

Genetics research is discovering that life is incredibly complex.

Not exactly a new discovery.

That is why the first assumption of evolution is: (1) Assume that life exists.

No. The science of evolutionary theory addresses the changes in life over time. Complexity is NOT 'why' evolutionary theory only covers life that already exists.

Unfortunately, evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today.

No, evolution research keeps finding evidence that life is lots, lots, lots OLDER than the Fludd myth, thus it is not supporting the Fludd myth.

It is having trouble doing anything else.

Except for the fact that it isn't having that trouble....


Well, actually, you may be right. It's unfair to say you're twisting science to support your position. It's more accurate to say you're completely ignoring science and claiming a victory.

 

[James Brown]

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.

All right then, we'll have to take a page from your book. It is now up to someone to construct a barge 450 feet long entirely out of wood. This barge must be filled with mass equivalent to a pair of all land mammals and birds, a year's worth of fodder, plus eight humans and their year's worth of provisions. No power tools or modern ship-building methods may be used, and the construction crew must consist of no more than eight people at any given time. This barge must then be pushed out into the ocean--ideally during hurricane season--and must remain seaworthy for a year. If during that time the barge sinks, then we can put to rest the notion that Noah was able to accomplish the equivalent.

For the record, I don't think it can be done in our era, and thus I don't believe it was ever done. Until someone can pull it off, mark this story as Unproven.

 

[rhutchin]

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.

All right then, we'll have to take a page from your book. It is now up to someone to construct a barge 450 feet long entirely out of wood. This barge must be filled with mass equivalent to a pair of all land mammals and birds, a year's worth of fodder, plus eight humans and their year's worth of provisions. No power tools or modern ship-building methods may be used, and the construction crew must consist of no more than eight people at any given time. This barge must then be pushed out into the ocean--ideally during hurricane season--and must remain seaworthy for a year. If during that time the barge sinks, then we can put to rest the notion that Noah was able to accomplish the equivalent.

For the record, I don't think it can be done in our era, and thus I don't believe it was ever done. Until someone can pull it off, mark this story as Unproven.

It could be done; the problem is funding. I don't see any company looking to build arks to transport goods, so there is no practical need to do research other than to test the validity of the Biblical account.

Nonetheless, if someone got the funding to do the experiment, it would be interesting.

 

[rhutchin]

Oh. That's easy:

Genetics research is discovering that life is incredibly complex.

Not exactly a new discovery.

That is why the first assumption of evolution is: (1) Assume that life exists.

No. The science of evolutionary theory addresses the changes in life over time. Complexity is NOT 'why' evolutionary theory only covers life that already exists.

Unfortunately, evolution research is only helping to explain how the animals that came off the ark became the great variety of animal life we observe today.

No, evolution research keeps finding evidence that life is lots, lots, lots OLDER than the Fludd myth, thus it is not supporting the Fludd myth.

It is having trouble doing anything else.

Except for the fact that it isn't having that trouble....


Well, actually, you may be right. It's unfair to say you're twisting science to support your position. It's more accurate to say you're completely ignoring science and claiming a victory.

BUT you don't even touch the science to which the article refers or the analysis of the research results. Why not?

 

[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?

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.

No one has addressed the research. Even you defer doing so.

Complexity is an issue. You need a biological process to take something simple and evolve it into something complex. There is no biological process that has been shown to take a simple organism and make it complex. So, if genetics is uncovering greater complexity in organisms, then the demands evolutionists place on biological processes to produce this complexity become more fanciful. Biological processes have been shown to degrade genomes but never to upgrade them. More complexity means more upgrading and you can't even get simple upgrades.

 

[Keith&Co.]

BUT you don't even touch the science to which the article refers or the analysis of the research results. Why not?

I've already explained that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Complexity is an issue.

Show it, then.

You need a biological process to take something simple and evolve it into something complex.

Define 'simple.'
Define 'complex.'

There is no biological process that has been shown to take a simple organism and make it complex. ... Biological processes have been shown to degrade genomes but never to upgrade them.

Now we're back to ignoring the science in order to support creationism.
If you're not going to play honestly, then don't bother to play.

More complexity means more upgrading and you can't even get simple upgrades.

Incorrect. Mutations are not only degradational.

 

[Bronzeage]

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.

If olive trees survive and animals do not, this is an interference in natural processes, thus a miracle. As I said before, the Ark is not technically possible, so the Genesis account cannot be accurate. Science is very clear on this point.

What this means for you, is you are wrong about the genetic research showing all life on Earth is descended from those saved on the Ark. Things which cannot happen, do not happen. Science will sort out the issues, but the Ark has already been dismissed, just as a world wide flood has been dismissed.

 

[Kharakov]

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?"

Keith brought up the "all powerful being", so claims in relation to it should be directed at him.

I brought up the point that the claim that the universe wasn't created at some point in time, with an intact back story is completely unscientific- it's not a falsifiable claim, there is no way to test it, it's simply bullshit- unless you, yourself, created the damn universe and know what attributes it had in the very beginning, you've got nothing. <yeah, pun intended... but you should know that by now, shouldn't you?>

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).

I've written multi dimensional escape time formulas for mathematical objects. One 3 dimensional slice of the object, at t=0, has both a future (t>0) and a past (t<0). The object is whole, continuous to a singularity at either end of its timeline (different formulas produce different types of singularities, some with multiple singularities at various points in space and time), and generated by a very simple rule set. It has repetitive and unique features.

I can generate this object at t=0, and interact with it as it evolves mathematically, according to various rules that I set. Does this mean that the object's past at any time t<0 existed before the object was generated at t=0?

Now, if I alter the object by influencing the mathematical "spacetime" of the object according to certain rules, and allow interplay between the spacetime rules and object generation rules at t=0, I can alter the object at t=0. Not only does the change in the topological space (mathematical spacetime) influence the object at t=0, but it alters the object into the past t<0 and the future t>0. In other words, altering the topological space the object is generated in at t=0 alters the whole object, extending all the way into the past, and all the way into the future.

Does this mean the objects past existed before I generated it at t=0? In fact, I don't even generate the object at t<0 unless I want to look at it at that point in time. So, in this case, the objects past does not exist until I look for it, although there are VERY specific rules that guarantee a very specific past for the damn object (calling it a damn object reminds me of my one grandfather... well, both grandfathers, but in different ways).

 

[Kharakov]

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.

No. I'm not assuming you're lying. I'm not even assuming you don't understand math, generating functions, objects, creation of things according to specific rules that allow a past to be created at the same time as a future and a "now" are created by the very specific rule set. I think you just like arguing against truth- because truth is the one thing you can attack, and ultimately will always be there.

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.

... ehh.. I like murder, as long as it doesn't happen to me. I'm supposed to have a problem with it why?

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.

Why do I have to use the Books? I've got reality... and in case you haven't noticed, it is not all in the "Books" that you speak of.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. I'm not assuming you're lying.

Heh. Funny.

I'm not even assuming you don't understand math, generating functions, objects, creation of things according to specific rules that allow a past to be created at the same time as a future and a "now" are created by the very specific rule set.

Just say 'woo.' It's more efficient.

I think you just like arguing against truth- because truth is the one thing you can attack, and ultimately will always be there.

No, i also argued against the platitudes offered instead of truths, which led to my apostasy.
So the fact that i argue doesn't make it a truth.

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.

... ehh.. I like murder, as long as it doesn't happen to me. I'm supposed to have a problem with it why?

Where did i say you're supposed to have a problem with it?
WAY off the point, Kharrie.

Putting a spin in changing 'lie' to 'deceit' doesn't make it any more truthful. And once you posit that either reality or revelation is not historical, you have put everything into doubt.

Why do I have to use the Books?

Because the only motivation creationists have to posit a universe created with the appearance of age (a lie) is to try to justify their creation myth's timeline against the observed universe.

I've got reality... and in case you haven't noticed, it is not all in the "Books" that you speak of.

You've got reality and you've got your favored woo.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

Not crazy at all. The mathematical object I mentioned in my last post has an "intact" history as well. Observing properties of the object, one can create general formulas to describe various features of the object. One can even observe the changes in the object over time, and develop formulas that describe what is happening with the object over time. The formulas are not the generating function, rather the generating function causes behaviors that can be described or approximated by certain formulas, while the generating function is most likely transcendental, mathematically speaking.

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.

So people not having a clear idea about someone indicates that someone does not exist, yet people not having a clear idea about nature does not indicate nature does not exist? This is not the intellectual double standard you are looking for. "This is not the intellectual double standard we are looking for."

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.

Well, creating a universe at t=0, with a generating function that incorporates backwards and forwards generation of structure, and all that this entails, does create some problems with those who claim the past existed before it was caused by the generating function.

You basically have to ignore some pretty basic mathematical concepts about multidimensional objects and their generating functions if you want to postulate that the universe's past is what created the present. You have to throw out the possibility that the structure of the universe was generated using a specific generating function, that ALSO creates a past (just like the mathematical object I spoke of earlier) and a future, and ALSO allows for interaction with the object generated, with the past and future of the object being influenced by what the influencing factors do to the object NOW.

But, hey, who cares about dissention when it comes to a popularity contest, right?

It's not a popularity contest, it's a taste test. Saying "it all tastes like crap" because you didn't like one thing at the buffet is childish, and we both know it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So people not having a clear idea about someone indicates that someone does not exist,

Nay, nay, kemo sabe. People claiming that they're using the same source document have wildy divergent ideas, though they tend not to concentrate on the differences when they try to argue from popularity.
People who claim Christains outnumber all others in America at one point will point their fingers at another point and say that Catholics and Mormons aren't really c

yet people not having a clear idea about nature does not indicate nature does not exist? This is not the intellectual double standard you are looking for.

No, it's entirely original to you.

"This is not the intellectual double standard we are looking for."

Made in a low voice, perhaps with a mystical movement of the hand. Yep.

You basically have to ignore some pretty basic mathematical concepts about multidimensional objects and their generating functions if you want to postulate that the universe's past is what created the present. You have to throw out the possibility

As long as it's a possibility, why shouldn't it be thrown out? Just like the possibility of Last Tuesdayism? What prevents it from being thrown out?

But, hey, who cares about dissention when it comes to a popularity contest, right?

It's not a popularity contest, it's a taste test.

More spin?
You're the one that brought up a minority view. That shouldn't matter one whit to the accuracy of the stance unless you're appealing to popularity.

Saying "it all tastes like crap" because you didn't like one thing at the buffet is childish, and we both know it.

But i'm not.
I'm saying that i'm not going to taste-test an imaginary dish that you say could possibly be served, at least not until the platter shows up on the buffet. Claiming a position of moral superiority because i won't pretend that your fantasy roast is as tasty as the cold-cuts platter is pretty tempermental.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm not even assuming you don't understand math, generating functions, objects, creation of things according to specific rules that allow a past to be created at the same time as a future and a "now" are created by the very specific rule set.

Just say 'woo.' It's more efficient.

Keith, it's not woo. Do you understand mathematical generating functions that generate a complex past and future which are smoothly connected to a present?

Why do I have to use the Books?

Because the only motivation creationists have to posit a universe created with the appearance of age (a lie) is to try to justify their creation myth's timeline against the observed universe.

Umm.. Keith. You're a fucking idiot sometimes. I came to the conclusion I had about the universe being able to be generated with a past and a future, from a specific generating function (with a specific set of rules), because I have created mathematical objects, from a specific set of rules, that have a past and future smoothly connected to their "present".

Just because you don't understand generating functions that can generate an intact past, present, and future, that allow interactivity and influence upon the past, present, and future generated by the function, doesn't mean they don't exist. I can show you some of the VERY simple multidimensional generating functions I've worked with (not in thread, we'll start a new one).

The most fucked up thing about the generating functions, that actually is a bit telling at this point, is that they create a singularity (or multiple) way back in the past, and far off in the future, from the t=0 point. These singularities are points at which none of the formulas which describe the various properties of the object generated by the generating function break down. Seems a little bit like what happens back at the BB singularity in regards to current theories. Funny that.

 

[James Brown]

Nay, nay, kemo sabe. People claiming that they're using the same source document have wildy divergent ideas, though they tend not to concentrate on the differences when they try to argue from popularity.
People who claim Christains outnumber all others in America at one point will point their fingers at another point and say that Catholics and Mormons aren't really c

The only thing that all Christians agree on is that the majority of the others is Doing It Wrong™

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nay, nay, kemo sabe. People claiming that they're using the same source document have wildy divergent ideas, though they tend not to concentrate on the differences when they try to argue from popularity.
People who claim Christains outnumber all others in America at one point will point their fingers at another point and say that Catholics and Mormons aren't really c

The only thing that all Christians agree on is that the majority of the others is Doing It Wrong™

EXCEPT when they're playing the 'this is a christain nation' game. Then the speaker becomes a Methodist, who accepts anyone as long as they claim to be Christain.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Keith, it's not woo. Do you understand mathematical generating functions that generate a complex past and future which are smoothly connected to a present?

Of course it's woo. Once you make the leap from math constructs to applying agency, that's when it's woo.

Umm.. Keith. You're a fucking idiot sometimes. I came to the conclusion I had about the universe being able to be generated with a past and a future, from a specific generating function (with a specific set of rules), because I have created mathematical objects, from a specific set of rules, that have a past and future smoothly connected to their "present".

Just because you don't understand generating functions that can generate an intact past, present, and future, that allow interactivity and influence upon the past, present, and future generated by the function, doesn't mean they don't exist.

No, they don't.
Of course, playing with math constructs and then saying it's a possibility that has to be considered when trying to figure out the nature of the universe doesn't mean they're anything but math constructs with no bearing upon the reality we're trying to discern.

When you say we should 'consider the possibility' you're in the same realm as Last Tuesdayism and deceitful deity.

Or at least, playing with some very elegant logic that works really well, but may have absolutely no bearing on reality.

 

[Kharakov]

You basically have to ignore some pretty basic mathematical concepts about multidimensional objects and their generating functions if you want to postulate that the universe's past is what created the present. You have to throw out the possibility

As long as it's a possibility, why shouldn't it be thrown out? Just like the possibility of Last Tuesdayism? What prevents it from being thrown out?

Nope Keith. It's simple. If you ignore some relevant facts about the nature of reality in an attempt to hold onto your belief system, like you're doing right now, you're in the boat with all the other wackadoodles who also ignore relevant facts about the nature of reality to hold onto their belief systems. You can't base your beliefs on opposition to false beliefs, and expect them to be automatically correct. Especially when you start throwing out valid pieces of information in your attempt to hold onto your beliefs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nope Keith. It's simple. If you ignore some relevant facts about the nature of reality in an attempt to hold onto your belief system, like you're doing right now, you're in the boat with all the other wackadoodles
who also ignore relevant facts about the nature of reality to hold onto their belief systems. You can't base your beliefs on opposition to false beliefs, and expect them to be automatically correct. Especially when you start throwing out valid pieces of information in your attempt to hold onto your beliefs.

What pieces of hte 'nature of reality' are being thrown out, here? Math isn't physics.

 

[Kharakov]

Umm.. Keith. You're a fucking idiot sometimes. I came to the conclusion I had about the universe being able to be generated with a past and a future, from a specific generating function (with a specific set of rules), because I have created mathematical objects, from a specific set of rules, that have a past and future smoothly connected to their "present".

Just because you don't understand generating functions that can generate an intact past, present, and future, that allow interactivity and influence upon the past, present, and future generated by the function, doesn't mean they don't exist.

No, they don't.

Generating functions don't exist? They are (relatively) basic math. But keep believing that. It's not like you have to be correct about all of reality in order to enjoy certain portions of it.

Of course, playing with math constructs and then saying it's a possibility that has to be considered when trying to figure out the nature of the universe doesn't mean they're anything but math constructs with no bearing upon the reality we're trying to discern.

Yeah, because learning mathematical concepts, and then discovering that reality closely follows certain mathematical patterns shows us that one cannot learn a mathematical concept and then see how it applies to reality. Nobody ever learned some math, and then saw how it applied to what was occurring in reality.

It's like you think that the mathematical descriptions of the physical universe were duck taped together to match the physical universe, instead of the physical universe's interactions being determined by mathematical relationships. Do you think that we refined cosine, pi, e, and the various transcendental functions until they matched reality?