Creationist/Woo Split From Nature Paper Thread

[Rumraket]

Your link is to a sign-in.

Can you just provide the evidence here, or no?

Edited, look again.

Thanks!

Abstract

Fossilized bones from extinct taxa harbor the potential for obtaining protein or DNA sequences that could reveal evolutionary links to extant species. We used mass spectrometry to obtain protein sequences from bones of a 160,000- to 600,000-year-old extinct mastodon (Mammut americanum) and a 68-million-year-old dinosaur (Tyrannosaurus rex). The presence of T. rex sequences indicates that their peptide bonds were remarkably stable. Mass spectrometry can thus be used to determine unique sequences from ancient organisms from peptide fragmentation patterns, a valuable tool to study the evolution and adaptation of ancient taxa from which genomic sequences are unlikely to be obtained.

Except this doesn't say anything about dino to bird evolution.

That's because it doesn't bother trying to make explicit statements of descent so the uninformed get their facts handed to them on a platter.

You have to actually understand the logic of phylogenetics and genetic descent to understand why this actually is evidence of common descent between birds and dinosaurs.

Let's start at the basics: You inherit your genes from your parents, right? So you are most genetically similar to your parents, right? You are less genetically similar to your grandparents, and even less genetically similar to your great grandparents. And so on and so forth.

If we go to a totally different family from yours, we can quickly distinguish between members of your immediate family, and family which is removed by thousands of generations. All this you presumably accept. Right?

[Rumraket]

A BLAST alignment and similarity search (23) of the five T. rex peptides from collagen α1t1 as a group against the all-taxa protein database showed 58% sequence identity to chicken, followed by frog (51% identity) and newt (51% identity). The small group of peptide sequence data reported here support phylogenetic hypotheses suggesting that T. rex is most closely related to birds among living organisms whose collagen sequence is p resent in protein databases (24–26).

What do you think this says?

It says this particular small data set slightly correlates with chickens, frogs and newts.

Extrapolating that to 'DNA evidences dino to bird' is not an honest presentation.

If that was the only genetic data in existence you would have a point, but it is not. You are clearly not familiar with the logic behind the evidence from phylogenetics. No, I can't be bothered spelling it out for you.

I recommend you start here: http://biologos.org/questions/genetic-evidence

[Rumraket]

Key question for Jerome: If evolution by common descent is a religious belief, why is it being strongly supported and argued for by the christian organization and website I just linked to?

[Jerome Da Gnome]

If we found an organism which did not show any degree of sequence similarity to any extant life, or if there was a signficant mismatch between the genetic and the morphological-based hierarchies, common descent for that particular organism would be falsified.

Aliens seeded the earth, goddidit, both of these would presume that all life is going to be similar in construction. The evolution theory is no different than those other beliefs in regards that falsification parameter.

The general evolutionary mechanism could be falsified if it could be shown that there is no mechanism of inheritance, or that there is no such thing as differential reproductive success(natural selection), or no such thing as random sampling(genetic drift). These are all theoretically possible observations, but they have not been made, which is why the theory is falsifiable but not falsified.

Now that is just silly. All of our history of life shows inheritance. We have no mechanism to create life from non-life.

Basically what you said here, was if we figure out how to create life from non-life, that evolution is falsified. You don't believe that, but that is where your logic takes you.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

If that was the only genetic data in existence you would have a point, but it is not. You are clearly not familiar with the logic behind the evidence from phylogenetics. No, I can't be bothered spelling it out for you.

I don't think you are understanding what you are presenting.

I can't read the full text without logging in. Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?

[Jerome Da Gnome]

That's because it doesn't bother trying to make explicit statements of descent so the uninformed get their facts handed to them on a platter.

This is a really weird thing to say. Science is about expanding knowledge, I am sure that is what the paper is attempting to do. It sounds more like you are extrapolating beyond the science in the paper.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

You have to actually understand the logic of phylogenetics and genetic descent to understand why this actually is evidence of common descent between birds and dinosaurs.

I understand the premise, it is strong and apparent. You believe everything came from a first life, of course everything will be connected.

[Rumraket]

If we found an organism which did not show any degree of sequence similarity to any extant life, or if there was a signficant mismatch between the genetic and the morphological-based hierarchies, common descent for that particular organism would be falsified.

Aliens seeded the earth, goddidit, both of these would presume that all life is going to be similar in construction.

No it wouldn't, we have no idea how aliens or god would decide to create life or what they were trying to achieve. For all we know, they could decide to create life as absolutely unrelated to each other in all concievable ways.

In contrast, the only theory that absolutely does predict nested hierarchical patterns of shared derived characteristics is evolution.

Yes, a designer can choose to design a nested hierarchical pattern of shared derived characteristics, but there is no expectation that it will, therefore the finding of nested hierarchical patterns of shared derived characteristics is antecedently more probable on evolution, than on design by god or aliens.

Therefore evolution is a better, more probable explanation of the facts.

The evolution theory is no different than those other beliefs in regards that falsification parameter.

As I have just explained you are wrong.

The general evolutionary mechanism could be falsified if it could be shown that there is no mechanism of inheritance, or that there is no such thing as differential reproductive success(natural selection), or no such thing as random sampling(genetic drift). These are all theoretically possible observations, but they have not been made, which is why the theory is falsifiable but not falsified.

Now that is just silly. All of our history of life shows inheritance.

Which implies this particular piece of the theory would be very hard to falsify, not that it cannot be done. There's a difference, so you're still wrong.

Of course, evolution is more than just inheritance, but inheritance forms an integral part of the mechanism used in the theory. Therefore, if you could show that inheritance did not or could not take place, you would falsify one of the foundations of the theory. It is therefore, in principle, falsifiable.

But that is not the only criterion of falsification I offered, simply one of the very hardest ones. There's still differential reproductive success and genetic drift, which you haven't even touched upon.

We have no mechanism to create life from non-life.

Irrelevant to the subject matter, but wrong. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23754820

Basically what you said here, was if we figure out how to create life from non-life, that evolution is falsified. You don't believe that, but that is where your logic takes you.

No that's not what I said at all and follows in no way. If you disagree, please explicitly derive this conclusion from statements I made through a deductive logical syllogism.

[Rumraket]

If that was the only genetic data in existence you would have a point, but it is not. You are clearly not familiar with the logic behind the evidence from phylogenetics. No, I can't be bothered spelling it out for you.

I don't think you are understanding what you are presenting.

I don't think you know how to respond, and I think you're afraid of pursuing this subject in depth, which is why you are now erecting my accusation back at me instead. It is childish and I take this as a tacit admission that you somewhere suspect I'm right.

If I'm wrong, please go read this: http://bio.fsu.edu/~stevet/MolEvol.pdf And perhaps supplement it with reading the many fine articles on genetic evidence for evolution from the BioLogos page.

I can't read the full text without logging in. Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?

No. The paper is accessible with a free registration.

[Rumraket]

You have to actually understand the logic of phylogenetics and genetic descent to understand why this actually is evidence of common descent between birds and dinosaurs.

I understand the premise, it is strong and apparent. You believe everything came from a first life, of course everything will be connected.

That's not the premise, that is an evidentially derived conclusion. We have evidence of universal common descent. What is important here is that this evidence could be different, it could point to multiple independent origins. But it does not, so that is why "I believe everything came from a first life", because that is what the evidence shows.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

I don't think you know how to respond, and I think you're afraid of pursuing this subject in depth, which is why you are now erecting my accusation back at me instead.

Strange to snip the part of the quote where I ask "I can't read the full text without logging in. Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?" and then imply I can not debate the subject. That looks like a dishonest manipulation in an attempt to set-up a personal attack.

So, can you copy/pasta the whole paper so we can talk about your inappropriate extrapolations from the science within, or not?

[Jerome Da Gnome]

I understand the premise, it is strong and apparent. You believe everything came from a first life, of course everything will be connected.

That's not the premise, that is an evidentially derived conclusion. We have evidence of universal common descent. What is important here is that this evidence could be different, it could point to multiple independent origins. But it does not, so that is why "I believe everything came from a first life", because that is what the evidence shows.

So we agree here. Not sure why you are initiating the response with a negative.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

No that's not what I said at all and follows in no way. If you disagree, please explicitly derive this conclusion from statements I made through a deductive logical syllogism.

Evolution is based in inherited traits, your 'ability to falsify' argument is finding non-iherited traits. If life is created outside of from inherited traits, you will not say that this falsifies evolution theory.

Therefore, you still have not presented an ability to falsify the theory.

The general evolutionary mechanism could be falsified if it could be shown that there is no mechanism of inheritance, or that there is no such thing as differential reproductive success(natural selection), or no such thing as random sampling(genetic drift). These are all theoretically possible observations, but they have not been made, which is why the theory is falsifiable but not falsified.

Now that is just silly. All of our history of life shows inheritance. We have no mechanism to create life from non-life.

Basically what you said here, was if we figure out how to create life from non-life, that evolution is falsified. You don't believe that, but that is where your logic takes you.[/quote]

[DarthHelmet86]

I don't think you know how to respond, and I think you're afraid of pursuing this subject in depth, which is why you are now erecting my accusation back at me instead.

Strange to snip the part of the quote where I ask "I can't read the full text without logging in. Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?" and then imply I can not debate the subject. That looks like a dishonest manipulation in an attempt to set-up a personal attack.

So, can you copy/pasta the whole paper so we can talk about your inappropriate extrapolations from the science within, or not?

Strange how you snipped him doing just that in the post you quoted.

If that was the only genetic data in existence you would have a point, but it is not. You are clearly not familiar with the logic behind the evidence from phylogenetics. No, I can't be bothered spelling it out for you.

I don't think you are understanding what you are presenting.

I don't think you know how to respond, and I think you're afraid of pursuing this subject in depth, which is why you are now erecting my accusation back at me instead. It is childish and I take this as a tacit admission that you somewhere suspect I'm right.

If I'm wrong, please go read this: http://bio.fsu.edu/~stevet/MolEvol.pdf And perhaps supplement it with reading the many fine articles on genetic evidence for evolution from the BioLogos page.

I can't read the full text without logging in. Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?

No. The paper is accessible with a free registration.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

That is not the paper we are talking about.

Did you not notice, or was that intentional?

[Jerome Da Gnome]

DarthHelmet86, this is the paper we are talking about:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280.abstract

[DarthHelmet86]

I can't read the full text without logging in. Can you copy/pasta the whole paper?

No. The paper is accessible with a free registration.

He answered you saying you are not able to read it, he did not snip it out like you claimed. It is available to read with a free registration. It is the paper you are talking about, Read Full Text link leads to a sign in page that includes a Register For Free link below the sign in box. So you snipped out his response to you asking for the paper to be copy pasted here and then accused him of snipping out you asking for it even though anyone reading the thread could see he had told you how to read it in full.

[Jerome Da Gnome]

If he has the registration, why not just post the paper..

[DarthHelmet86]

So you admit he didn't snip out you saying you wanted the paper copy pasted and in fact answered you as to how to read it in full?

[Jerome Da Gnome]

The way scientific inquiry works is the parties examine the material.

I am thoroughly confused by this reticence to divulge the paper.