9
   

origin of species

 
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 10:18 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
so chaotic evolution, sort of a "hit or miss speciation" is part of his "Plan"?

Its kind of a problem that e can detect these evolutionry chnges tht seem to prallel the changing environment .
Ill plead ignorance and no ability to see these wonderful things about your god that you assert. It must be wonerful being so damn certain.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 10:26 am
@farmerman,
We can go around and around on this all day. I'm not trying to convince you of God's existence, and you can't convince me he doesn't exist.

However, what you call chaotic evolution may very much be a part of his design. I don't presume to know his mind, but I can contemplate the dilemma of a creator with power beyond anything we can imagine wanting to create something that has a life of it's own (for lack of a better term), that might surprise even him. (And I use the male pronoun only for convenience). Set evolution going and sit back and see where it leads.

BTW - I'm not damned certain, or even certain of any of this, but if you want to know how it feels to be that way, you should ask yourself.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 12:25 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I dont know anything more than what I can evidence . I really dont waste any time going over these alternatives pther than naturalism because there, at least, I can simply follow the data. I have no idea in hell qhere to begin re"god and his existence nd ffecting our planets pthway.

You know where to begin
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 01:13 pm
@farmerman,
That's fine but you do seem compelled to waste your time ridiculing every expression of belief in God's existence.

I totally get the mindset that declares it will only believe what can be proven with evidence, and it's why I am not 100% certain of God's existence. How can can anyone be?

But until you or someone else can provide proof that he doesn't exist, I'm going to stick with what seems to me, at least, most likely.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 01:19 pm
No one has to disprove an extraordinary claim. Anyone making any kind of claim has the burden of proof, and as Mr. Sagan observed: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 01:39 pm
@Setanta,
It stares at you from the mirror all the time.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 02:04 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upq-TUtLLLQ
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 02:17 pm
@Setanta,
I'm fine with this, but I'm also not asking anyone to disprove anything, nor am I claiming with absolute certainty that God exists. I've expressed my belief that he does, and it's perfectly OK for you and FM to believe he doesn't and express that belief.

However, if either of you are going to claim with absolute certainty that he doesn't exist, I call that an extraordinary claim and, in accordance with Carl Sagan's rule, I would like to see proof. Believe me, if is the case, I want to know.

As long as beliefs don't injury anyone, and no attempt is being made to coerce people into accepting them, I don't see why someone ridiculing them should be seen as anything other than rudeness. Millions of people; every Sunday eat a wafer that is supposed to be the body of the son of God who walked the earth thousands of years ago. I find it incredible but how does it harm anyone? I wouldn't have a problem telling them I didn't find it credible, but I wouldn't ridicule it.

The point I made is that evolution and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive. I don't think that's an extraordinary claim. Saying they are is what I would call an extraordinary claim.

But it's nothing for me or anyone else to get excited about.

Now political beliefs...that's a different story.










farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 02:42 pm
@Setanta,
yeh, what set sed.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 02:57 pm
@farmerman,
so far, all the folks who follow the facts of evolution havent spent much time disproving the existence of an alternative theory. The only time we enter such discussions is when folks like leadfoot complain that there isnt enough to make him believe in "mindless evolution and abiogenesis". AND, the only time we butt hads is when he wishes the scientific facts of the underpinning science to NOT support godless evolution.
As I said before, I can only go qwhwre facts and evidence lead.

May be that evolution hs a very small mathematical probability. Yet there seems to be NO DATA that supports the alternative hypotheses. I wonder why the IDers arent as critically analytical about their own worldview??

The concept of irreducible complexity has seemingly , been the only new thing brought up for anlyses. When Dr Behe posed this hypothesis he had about a few months of free time here no response was made about "IC". Long about 6 months after he posed his example ofirreducible complexity, a group of biologists from Brown U (I believe) showed that his example was qctually not "irreducible" at all.

Neutral "theory" has been posed as an argument against ntural selection but its never been a real argument. No real scientist has ever denied the concept (except as a few of the extremists who say that ALL evolution is merely neutral genetic drift". This was an extreme position that was mostly misinterpreted by onlly the IDers and Creationists as a means to throw some cinder blox in the road.


Nautral theory DOES work on the genetic level but almost ALL of natural selection occurs on the phenotypes. Thats really why the huge number of "cousin" species exist in the fossil record.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 03:21 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Long about 6 months after he posed his example ofirreducible complexity, a group of biologists from Brown U (I believe) showed that his example was qctually not "irreducible" at all.

Are you referring to the infamous mousetrap/ tie clip 'smack down'?

That was the funniest 'debunking' of irreducible complexity I ever saw :-)
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 03:50 pm
@farmerman,
Third it on what Setanta said.
ossobucotemp
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 03:57 pm
@edgarblythe,
Fourth it on what Set said, and what FM says, unless he is talking about cumin, a whole different subject matter.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 05:11 pm
@ossobucotemp,
It takes a lot of spice to make primordial soup.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 05:17 pm
@Leadfoot,
It takes a hard head to pretend evolution could not happen, but magic can.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 05:25 pm
@edgarblythe,
And whose head would that be?
I've never pretended evolution could not happen. Farmer can explain it to you.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 05:59 pm
@Leadfoot,
The "tie clip" was a teeny joke on Dr Behe's "design example" of a mousetrap deminstrating "irreducible complexity> The scientific example, more to the gravity of the argument that Behe was using from biochemistry. Dr Behe, gave the biological example of the enzymatic cascade that is responsiblke for blood clotting in vertebrates (I believe the orders he was using as example were cetaceans)

Quote:

As I wrote in my 1999 book Finding Darwin's God, Russell Doolittle's pioneering work on protein evolution has indeed shown that the blood clotting cascade could, and indeed was, produced by Darwinian evolution. Dr. Behe's defense of his position to the contrary requires him to explain why my description of the system's evolution (pp. 152-161) is not valid. In his web-published defense he writes that my description is "a just-so story that doesn't deal with any of the difficulties the evolution of such an intricate system would face."

Curiously, Behe all but ignores my description of the evolution of blood clotting in the lobster, and provides no rebuttal to my scenario for its evolution (based, of course, on Doolittle's research work). I described the lobster system in my book for two reasons: (1) It, like the vertebrate system is (by Behe's standards) irreducibly complex, and (2) It is a simpler system whose step-by-step evolution is relatively easy to account for.

Behe quite properly notes that my own description of the evolution of the vertebrate clotting system is rather brief... a decision, alas, of my Editor at Harper-Collins (the book's publisher). Nonetheless, I still have my original draft of this edited-out section, which the reader may wish to consult. (Click here for my ideas on the evolution of the vertebrate clotting system). However, which elements of my description, besides its sketchiness, does he take issue with?

Behe asserts that the targeting of a protease, a digestive enzyme, to the bloodstream is a "potentially deadly situation," and tells the readers of his web document that we can tell how deadly this might be by looking at situations "where regulatory proteins are missing from modern organisms." In other words, Behe wants us to look at what happens when the highly-regulated current versions of clotting proteases are missing their regulatory factors. Despite this bluster, however, Behe has no evidence that the mistargeting of an inactive protease to the bloodstream would cause harm. Indeed, the recent discovery that antifreeze protein genes in fish arose from exactly such a mistargeting of proteases into the bloodstream (Chen, L., DeVries, A. L. & Cheng, C.- H. C. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 3811­3816 (1997); and Chen, L., DeVries, A. L. & Cheng, C.-H. C. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 94, 3817­3822 (1997)) suggests that exactly the opposite is true.

Having made unsupported claims about the "danger" of such a mutation, Behe says that it would be difficult to see what "advantage" this would present to the organism. The answer, of course, is that it would provide a slight improvement in the organism's ability to clot blood - and that's the point. The clotting system doesn't have to work full-blast right away. In a primitive vertebrate with a low-pressure circulatory system, a very slight improvement in clotting would be advantageous, and would be favored by natural selection.

Behe then wonders how the circulating protease could become localized at the site of a clot, as if this were an insurmountable difficulty. It's not. As I suggested in my original draft on the evolution of clotting, a well-understood process called exon shuffling could have placed an "EGF domain" onto the protease sequence, and the "problem" that Behe puzzles over is solved in a flash.

Finally, Behe emphasizes that the real problem is not to generate a clot - it is to "regulate" that clot by means of an inhibitor of the protease so that it doesn't become destructive. But that's not a problem for evolution, either. As usual, Behe envisions a clotting protease that is just as powerful as the fully-evolved proteases in modern vertebrates. However, remember that this is the same guy who fretted a moment or two ago that the protease would not be strong enough to clot effectively. He wants to have it both ways. The answer to his objection is just what I wrote in the draft:

" ... a primitive clotting system, adequate for an animal with low blood pressure and minimal blood flow, doesn't have the clotting capacity to present this kind of a threat. But just as soon as the occasional clot becomes large enough to present health risks, natural selection would favor the evolution of systems to keep clot formation in check. And where would these systems come from? From pre-existing proteins, of course, duplicated and modified. The tissues of the body produce a protein known as alpha-1-antitrypsin which binds to the active site of serine proteases found in tissues and keeps them in check. So, just as soon as clotting systems became strong enough, gene duplication would have presented natural selection with a working protease inhibitor that could then evolve into antithrombin, a similar inhibitor that today blocks the action of the primary fibrinogen-cleaving protease, thrombin."

In short, none of the points raised by Behe are adequate to explain why the vertebrate clotting system could not have evolved. Furthermore, as Doolittle's work has shown clearly, the hypothesis of evolution makes testable predictions with respect to the DNA sequences of clotting proteins, and these predictions have turned out to be correct time and time again.

Why has Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" met with so little support within the scientific community? I would suggest that the reason is simple. His hypothesis is wrong. The complex biochemical systems of living organisms, including the vertebrate clotting cascade, are fully understandable in terms of Darwinian evolution




Simpply stated that, even in the biochemical world of such functions as "blood clotting" the process of evolution takes something the animal alredy has (Body digestive fluids in organisms with lower blood prpessures, and DOES SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THEM, IE makes some of the digestive fluids and enzymes a mechanism to clot the organisms "blood"
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 06:06 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Yeah, blah, blah, blah . . .

You wrote:
. . . But until you or someone else can provide proof that he doesn't exist . . .


So, once again, people who make claims have the burden of proof, no one has to disprove the claim. Once again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 20 Aug, 2016 06:48 pm
@Setanta,
Ever the sweetheart.

Saying that until it is proven there is no God, that I will continue to believe is hardly a claim of any sort.

Not sure why it annoys you so much that people believe in something you don't.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2016 05:36 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
well cmon Finn. When you state that you " I believe that a god was incharge of creation and evolution..." , and then, immediately adopt the standard "I believe in this strongly, so youve gotta prove me wrong", its not really the way that we normally present data to support a conclusion.

Speaking for me, Im too busy with my craft and (losing at keeping up) with reading the latest research results (which now seem to be identifying specific stratigraphic horizons in the ore Cambrian in which earliest life has occured), and these data have helped me support specific deposits of specific mineralized sands, I really dont have any interest nor time to invest in a specultion that "maybe a god did it"

WHY

1Its totally unimportant when the entire system of synthesis in rock cycles actually WORKS the way we know

2Absent that, the "designer" (were I to need that hypothesis evn proved) seems to be quite incompetent since science already knows "Shortcuts" to circumvent all these dead end species that riddle the fossil record

3Its really not my job to do your work.


WHY NOT get all you IDesr together and pose a good research program and send it to Discovery Intitute (they seem to be fresh out of any original ideas, theyve sort of "self relegated" their own arguments to a position of yelling at traffic. All they seem to do is try to stir the pot with their (often) ignorant critcicism of science. So far, nothing theyve said has resulted in anything worth even considering.

The dust heap of history (IMHO) awaits this entire movement unless someone comes up with actual phtos of the deity.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

There is a word for that! - Discussion by wandeljw
Best Euphemism for death and dying.... - Discussion by tsarstepan
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Question by lululucy
phrase/name of male seducer - Question by Zah03
Shameful sexist languge must be banned! - Question by neologist
Three Word Phrase I REALLY Hate to See - Discussion by hawkeye10
Is History an art or a science? - Question by Olivier5
"Rooms" in a cave - Question by shua
 
  1. Forums
  2. » origin of species
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/23/2020 at 06:50:48