Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Kharakov]

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.

Yeah, and yet, by some mysterious magical coincidence, mathematical relationships (sin, cosine, inverse square laws, distance, etc.) that were discovered happen to apply exactly to reality. It's almost like mathematical relationships are part of the structure of reality.

You do know that there is pure math- math that follows very specific rules and creates very specific patterns. The equations that describe this math can be used to describe reality, but they are ultimately the consequence of the axioms of mathematics. The fact that they do describe reality indicates something about reality. We discover a mathematical relationship (in pure math) and THEN see that reality follows mathematical relationships. We don't create a mathematical formula to describe reality, and then adjust 1+1 = 1.9999998 because the relationship is a bit off. The mathematical relationships exist. So exploring various mathematical ideas, and relationships, and checking to see whether or not they apply to reality IS a GREAT way of doing scientific exploration.

If you oppose this, you are a woo-ass motherfucker.

 

[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.

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.

Define "upgrade".

Biological processes have very definitely been shown to increase the genome size. A simple duplication of a random part of a random chromosome will do that.

Biological processes have also been shown to diversify genomes. A simple point mutation in a copy of a gene that doesn't affect the original copy will do that.

There you have already got to processes that gets you from one gene to a small family of two genes with a slightly different sequence and possibly slightly different functional effects.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

What "valid pieces of information" is Keith&Co ignoring?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I thought the Flood was supposed to destroy all life except that which Noah saved. Am I missing something? Why is rhutchin conveniently ignoring this?

 

[bilby]

Am I a bad person for belly laughing when my iPhone truncated the thread title, so it read "Cells' Molecular Diversity Confounds ... rhutchin"?

I expect I will be going to hell now, but it was SO worth it.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Am I a bad person for belly laughing when my iPhone truncated the thread title, so it read "Cells' Molecular Diversity Confounds ... rhutchin"?

I expect I will be going to hell now, but it was SO worth it.

I really don't like the word 'truncated'. Don't know why.

 

[rhutchin]

I thought the Flood was supposed to destroy all life except that which Noah saved. Am I missing something? Why is rhutchin conveniently ignoring this?

According to Genesis, God said, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Then, "On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah."

What's the issue?

 

[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.

Define "upgrade".

Starting with your first organism, you would need to upgrade to things like lungs, hearts, bone, blood, etc.

Biological processes have very definitely been shown to increase the genome size. A simple duplication of a random part of a random chromosome will do that.

Biological processes have also been shown to diversify genomes. A simple point mutation in a copy of a gene that doesn't affect the original copy will do that.

There you have already got to processes that gets you from one gene to a small family of two genes with a slightly different sequence and possibly slightly different functional effects.

OK, so what is the end result of all this? At the most, speciation. At the least, death. But mostly crowding and a mutation load that is ultimately detrimental to the continuing existence of the organism.

What is your point?

 

[rhutchin]

As I said before, the Ark is not technically possible, so the Genesis account cannot be accurate. Science is very clear on this point...Science will sort out the issues, but the Ark has already been dismissed, just as a world wide flood has been dismissed.

I don't think this is the case. However, if you have citations to the science, they would make good reading.

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.

Genetic research is sorting out speciation. Speciation explains how animals coming off the ark can produce a great variety of animals - how two canines can produce variety in canines.

 

[rhutchin]

Mutations are not only degradational.

Any examples?

 

[James Brown]

I thought the Flood was supposed to destroy all life except that which Noah saved. Am I missing something? Why is rhutchin conveniently ignoring this?

According to Genesis, God said, "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark--you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Then, "On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah."

What's the issue?

You skipped a passage.

The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. ² Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, ³ and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. ⁴ Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”

It's curious how Noah was supposed to know which animals were clean and unclean, given that the two categories weren't documented until the book of Exodus, supposedly written down centuries later. But that's another issue. What's even more curious is the much larger amount of livestock and fodder Noah was required to cram into his barge. Many creationists ignore this when performing their mass calculations and only count a pair of all animals.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think this is the case. However, if you have citations to the science, they would make good reading.

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.

Genetic research is sorting out speciation. Speciation explains how animals coming off the ark can produce a great variety of animals - how two canines can produce variety in canines.

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

 

[Underseer]

I don't think this is the case. However, if you have citations to the science, they would make good reading.

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.

Genetic research is sorting out speciation. Speciation explains how animals coming off the ark can produce a great variety of animals - how two canines can produce variety in canines.

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

You should stop letting Satan whisper in your ear while you examine the Holy Text. I suppose next you're going to tell me that snakes and donkeys don't talk. Why should anyone take you seriously when you believe things as stupid as that? Anyone who cares about the truth knows that snakes and donkeys can talk.

 

[rhutchin]

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

OK. List one and the citation to back it up. More than one, with citations, if you want.

 

[abaddon]

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

OK. List one and the citation to back it up. More than one, with citations, if you want.

Here are several problems for the Ark: http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

--------------

ETA: Maybe we can find some resources to cite about Noah's Ark from scholars of myths and fables, if you'd like to learn about its actual significance.

 

[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.

What "valid pieces of information" is Keith&Co ignoring?

Ignoring might be the wrong term, maybe something more along the lines of "suppressing", although I can't imagine, for the life of me, why someone would claim that:

A) generating functions do not exist
- that generate objects with a past, present, and future

B) and then spout out the deepity "Math isn't physics", which ignores the fact that one finds mathematical structures, and some of them correspond to reality, and comparing mathematical structures to reality IS one of the best ways to test physics and find the mathematical relationships that reality follows

 

[Malintent]

In other words, the Bible is wrong.

Nope. It is what people claim the Bible to say that can be wrong. The Bible is correct in what it says; people can be wrong in their understanding of what the Bible says.

All people can make wrong claims about the bible, or just some people? All of the bible is correct in what it says, or just some of it?

 

[rhutchin]

In other words, the Bible is wrong.

Nope. It is what people claim the Bible to say that can be wrong. The Bible is correct in what it says; people can be wrong in their understanding of what the Bible says.

All people can make wrong claims about the bible, or just some people? All of the bible is correct in what it says, or just some of it?

Anyone can misrepresent what the Bible says. The Bible says what it says. Whether it is true is a matter of research or faith or both.

 

[rhutchin]

The problem with your supposition is that the Ark did not exist. It is scientifically impossible for thousands of reasons and we don't need to list all of them. One is enough.

OK. List one and the citation to back it up. More than one, with citations, if you want.

Here are several problems for the Ark: http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

OK. We now have a list of alleged problems with citations to support the speculation of these as problems. Now we need the citations to research that demonstrate that the issues raised are valid. So, pick one and let's see what is out there.

 

[Kharakov]

Maybe rhutchin is in such a blissful, ignorant state that he can never actually comprehend anything that contradicts what the bible says.

It would be like he is protected from ever experiencing reality- which means we can kill him and move on, without any guilt, since he will still be blissfully ignorant about the reality of life and death anyway.

Unless you propose some type of theistic zoo for future atheists to come look at?

Show

No mirror here.