Questioning Darwin

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Questioning Darwin

#501  Postby Onyx8 » Feb 26, 2014 5:34 am

:lol: :thumbup: [I wasn't moderating, just screwing up]
The problem with fantasies is you can't really insist that everyone else believes in yours, the other problem with fantasies is that most believers of fantasies eventually get around to doing exactly that.
User avatar
Onyx8
Moderator
 
Posts: 17520
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#502  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Feb 26, 2014 5:37 am

Onyx8 wrote::lol: :thumbup: [I wasn't moderating, just screwing up]

yeah, I know, I was talking about myself when I screwed the pooch at RDF by moderating in da wrong thread! :lol: :lol:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#503  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 8:22 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Heard of scurvy, have you? Oh, wait, this is a disease caused by deficiency of vitamin C in the human diet. It used to affect sailors on long voyages until the Royal Navy came up with the idea of supplying citrus fruits, in the form of limes, to its sailors, which is the origin of the American nickname "Limey" for British people. This is one piece of evidence that the gene is broken, because if it wasn't, vitamin C deficiency wouldn't be an issue, because we would be able to synthesise it.


Would you not expect some people to be able to produce their own vitamin C or maybe re-acquire the ability to do so? Doesn't ToE evolution postulate this due to variation?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#504  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 8:26 am

Calilasseia wrote:Oh look, the same CPU architecture is found in iPhones, Samsung Galaxy phones, Sony Experia phones, Nokia phones ... getting the message here?


Same architecture does not mean same design. There will most likely be differences in design for each client and model. Same design does not mean they will be implemented in the same way.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#505  Postby Rumraket » Feb 26, 2014 9:27 am

questioner121 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Heard of scurvy, have you? Oh, wait, this is a disease caused by deficiency of vitamin C in the human diet. It used to affect sailors on long voyages until the Royal Navy came up with the idea of supplying citrus fruits, in the form of limes, to its sailors, which is the origin of the American nickname "Limey" for British people. This is one piece of evidence that the gene is broken, because if it wasn't, vitamin C deficiency wouldn't be an issue, because we would be able to synthesise it.


Would you not expect some people to be able to produce their own vitamin C or maybe re-acquire the ability to do so? Doesn't ToE evolution postulate this due to variation?

No. It is highly improbable that the deactivating mutation will be reversed. Even if it did, if there's no selection to retain a working gene because the diet is already high in vitamin-C, there will eventually just be another deactivating mutation.

By the way, you're not answering my questions.

Why would your designer, when designing a new organism, take this already broken vitamin-C gene and put in the new organism too, but shuffle some of the mutations around and introduce new ones, such that it looks like both broken vitamin-C genes derive from a common ancestor gene?

Why would he do this for multiple species? Keep taking the broken gene and put into additional organisms many times, keep making new mutations in them, and keep doing it such that it looks like they all evolved from a common ancestral gene?

What is the purpose of all these broken vitamin C genes? Why does the designer keep mutating them even when they are already broken? Why is he intentionally producing a nested hierarchical arrangement of mutations in this gene that agrees with the phylogeny we infer from comparative anatomy and the fossil record?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#506  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 9:33 am

Rumraket wrote:
Why would your designer design an organism with a gene for making vitamin C, then break the gene with mutations, so the organism cannot synthesize it's own vitamin C any more?


Yes he would. We have blind people, people without arms or legs, people with downs syndrome, people with autism, short people, etc. All these have been designed so that they can live their lives and we can observe them. Everything that can be observed in the universe has limitations as believers we believe everything has a purpose otherwise it would not exist. I know that to many non believers disabilities (as well as evil in the world) does not make sense in terms of there being God. The problem is that non believers aren't willing to accept the beliefs about God so they only think from their own perspective and desires. As humans we want to have an enjoyable life with no sadness and pain. We want everything to make sense and to be easy to accomplish. But from an Abrahamic faith point this is not what is written. Some of us will have a fantastic life some won't, some will brown, some will be white, some will be disabled, some won't, some will die early, some will live long, etc. Whatever happens is not under our control.

The broken vitamin C gene in no way refutes ID but it does raise questions about evolution.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#507  Postby ADParker » Feb 26, 2014 9:40 am

questioner121 wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
Heard of scurvy, have you? Oh, wait, this is a disease caused by deficiency of vitamin C in the human diet. It used to affect sailors on long voyages until the Royal Navy came up with the idea of supplying citrus fruits, in the form of limes, to its sailors, which is the origin of the American nickname "Limey" for British people. This is one piece of evidence that the gene is broken, because if it wasn't, vitamin C deficiency wouldn't be an issue, because we would be able to synthesise it.


Would you not expect some people to be able to produce their own vitamin C or maybe re-acquire the ability to do so? Doesn't ToE evolution postulate this due to variation?

No.
I would not expect some humans to be able to produce vitamin C as all evidence suggests that the initial mutation occurred long before humans arrived on the scene, which is why our fellow apes (I'm not sure how far it spreads exactly - ah good old wikipedia: "Loss of GULO activity in the primate order occurred about 63 million years ago, at about the time it split into the suborders haplorrhini (which lost the enzyme activity) and the more primitive strepsirrhini (which retained it)"...so way back covering most primates!) with a lot of mutations added after that time, from which we get evidence of its own evolution, and probably more mutations accumulated as the gene has been inactive since then - not affecting our evolution. So somehow any humans being lucky enough to retain it that long is unlikely.
And no I would not expect any human to "reacquire" it because that is a lot of quite specific mutations that would have to take place. Either all at once which would be just insanely improbable, or mutation after mutation, every one for no good reason being maintained. :what:

So no; ToE ("ToE evolution" is redundant as it means "Theory of Evolution evolution" ;) ) does not postulate this due to variation or due to anything else. Such variants no doubt existed at the time of, and a few generations after, the initial mutation.

It might be more likely to imagine that a few guinea pigs might maintain the ability, as I think their initial Gulonolactone oxidase deficiency mutation (that's the vitamin C making gene) was more recent. :grin:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#508  Postby ADParker » Feb 26, 2014 9:45 am

questioner121 wrote:The broken vitamin C gene in no way refutes ID but it does raise questions about evolution.

Only questions as to why anyone would deny it like you do. Seeing as it is just one fine example of evolution over tens of millions of years. :lol:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#509  Postby Rumraket » Feb 26, 2014 9:47 am

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Why would your designer design an organism with a gene for making vitamin C, then break the gene with mutations, so the organism cannot synthesize it's own vitamin C any more?

Yes he would.

Why?

questioner121 wrote:We have blind people, people without arms or legs, people with downs syndrome, people with autism, short people, etc. All these have been designed so that they can live their lives and we can observe them.Everything that can be observed in the universe has limitations as believers we believe everything has a purpose otherwise it would not exist.

I don't care about what you believe. I care about what you can demonstrate empirically, I care about models you can build we can test against observational data.

So far, all you've offered is statements of faith. You're not answering my questions.

questioner121 wrote:I know that to many non believers disabilities (as well as evil in the world) does not make sense in terms of there being God. The problem is that non believers aren't willing to accept the beliefs about God so they only think from their own perspective and desires. As humans we want to have an enjoyable life with no sadness and pain. We want everything to make sense and to be easy to accomplish. But from an Abrahamic faith point this is not what is written. Some of us will have a fantastic life some won't, some will brown, some will be white, some will be disabled, some won't, some will die early, some will live long, etc. Whatever happens is not under our control.

It doesn't matter that it's not under our control, that still does not explain why your designer is intentionally creating a nested hierarchical arrangement of broken vitamin-C genes with mutations in them. Why does your designer go out of his way to make it look like evolution happened?

questioner121 wrote:The broken vitamin C gene in no way refutes ID but it does raise questions about evolution.

No it doesn't, it makes zero sense on ID and only evolution can make sense of the patterns of mutations in the gene, including it's very existence as a functionless, broken gene.

All you have are mindless statements of faith and assertions opposite to reason and demonstrable fact. :roll:
Last edited by Rumraket on Feb 26, 2014 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#510  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 9:48 am

Rumraket wrote:No. It is highly improbable that the deactivating mutation will be reversed. Even if it did, if there's no selection to retain a working gene because the diet is already high in vitamin-C, there will eventually just be another deactivating mutation. [/url].


Why is it highly improbable? Is it not just another mutation? What was the selection criteria for the broken gene to become prevalent in the population if it didn't give any advantage, wouldn't this be classed as a neutral mutation? There are a number of examples of traits which have no know benefit to humans such as the beard, male nipples, body hair, our nose shape, etc. these are all still here. I would have thought something like the vitamin C gene is potentially advantages to a living organism if to moves habitat to a place where it can't get in vitamin C. I'd expect to see a sub species have the working vitamin C gene in an environment where there is little vitamin C available from the environment, wouldn't you?
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#511  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 9:57 am

Rumraket wrote:It doesn't matter that it's not under our control, that still does not explain why your designer is intentionally creating a nest hierarchical arrangement of broken vitamin-C genes with mutations in them. Why does your designer go out of his way to make it look like evolution happened?


It's you who has built this hierarchy. This would have no problem with fitting in a common design hierarchy. You've already made up your mind that common ancestry is true which is why everything fits. You're already aware that there things which don't fit in with the phylogenetic tree but you pass that off as normal "noise" expected in statistical analysis. That's just a cop out, you need to address those points before claiming common ancestry as a truth. But I suppose this is typical of non believers.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#512  Postby Greyman » Feb 26, 2014 9:59 am

That does not explain why broken genes would be included at all in the "common design", rather than simply be omitted.
Why is it broken in the same place for all apes, but broken in a different place for guinea pigs?
Why would the ape genes be tweaked by further mutations to present evidence of a phylogenetic tree?

The broken vitamin-C genes make no sense under the "common design" paradigm, but its phylogeny totally accords with "common decent".
Last edited by Greyman on Feb 26, 2014 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 493
Age: 53

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#513  Postby Rumraket » Feb 26, 2014 10:06 am

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:No. It is highly improbable that the deactivating mutation will be reversed. Even if it did, if there's no selection to retain a working gene because the diet is already high in vitamin-C, there will eventually just be another deactivating mutation. [/url].

Why is it highly improbable?

Simple probability. The odds of any one particular mutation occurring in the genome is 1 in the size of the genome (approximately 2.7 billion bases in Guinea pigs, which can serve as an approximation of the common ancestor) divided by the number of possible mutations at the site (transversion, transition, insertion and deletion, so that's 4).

That's 1.62 * 10-12, or about one and a half in a trillion.

questioner121 wrote:Is it not just another mutation? What was the selection criteria for the broken gene to become prevalent in the population if it didn't give any advantage, wouldn't this be classed as a neutral mutation?

The broken gene drifted to fixation.

questioner121 wrote:There are a number of examples of traits which have no know benefit to humans such as the beard, male nipples, body hair, our nose shape, etc. these are all still here. I would have thought something like the vitamin C gene is potentially advantages to a living organism if to moves habitat to a place where it can't get in vitamin C. I'd expect to see a sub species have the working vitamin C gene in an environment where there is little vitamin C available from the environment, wouldn't you?

No, I'd expect it to die if there's not enough vitamin-C, because the odds of restoring the gene now today, after having suffered hundreds of mutations and having multiple entire exons lost over 63 million year period of evolution, to be virtually zero.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#514  Postby Rumraket » Feb 26, 2014 10:10 am

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It doesn't matter that it's not under our control, that still does not explain why your designer is intentionally creating a nest hierarchical arrangement of broken vitamin-C genes with mutations in them. Why does your designer go out of his way to make it look like evolution happened?


It's you who has built this hierarchy. This would have no problem with fitting in a common design hierarchy.

What's the designer trying to achieve by mutating an already broken gene? Why is he mutating it such that the hierarchy we build from comparative anatomy and the fossil record, matches with the one we build using the nucleotide sequence in the broken vitamin-C gene?

questioner121 wrote:You've already made up your mind that common ancestry is true which is why everything fits. You're already aware that there things which don't fit in with the phylogenetic tree but you pass that off as normal "noise" expected in statistical analysis. That's just a cop out

No it isn't, I actually understand statistics. Noise is inevitable.

questioner121 wrote:you need to address those points before claiming common ancestry as a truth. But I suppose this is typical of non believers.

Your suppositions are worth less that nothing. What you're failing to address is the congruence of the nested hierarchical arrangement of mutations in an already broken gene. What's the point of this? What is the designer trying to achieve? Why is he trying to make it look like evolution happened?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#515  Postby questioner121 » Feb 26, 2014 10:29 am

Rumraket wrote:What's the point of this? What is the designer trying to achieve? Why is he trying to make it look like evolution happened?


I don't know why the designer is did this or what he's trying to achieve. It's you who is inferring evolution, creationists don't infer evolution and we're both looking at the same data.

Why is noise inevitable in statistical analysis? How do you know it's noise and not something more fundamental? Don't you apply the same to fossils? If something doesn't fit then it must just be an anomaly? You pick and choose to support your own conclusion and then claim to have credibility because you're using scientific data which you've hand picked and leave out the things that don't fit it. This is dishonest.
questioner121
 
Posts: 1883
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#516  Postby Rumraket » Feb 26, 2014 10:44 am

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:What's the point of this? What is the designer trying to achieve? Why is he trying to make it look like evolution happened?


I don't know why the designer is did this or what he's trying to achieve. It's you who is inferring evolution, creationists don't infer evolution and we're both looking at the same data.

That's because you're ignoring it. You're pretending it doesn't exist.

questioner121 wrote:Why is noise inevitable in statistical analysis? How do you know it's noise and not something more fundamental?

Go take a course in statistics.

questioner121 wrote:Don't you apply the same to fossils? If something doesn't fit then it must just be an anomaly?

You're welcome to tell me about something that doesn't fit.

questioner121 wrote:You pick and choose to support your own conclusion

No I don't, you pick and choose to support your own conclusion. You ignore the twin nested hierarchies. You generally don't build any testable models, and in so far as you do, you ignore it when they're falsified (common design doesn't meaningfully explain the twin nested hiearchy).

questioner121 wrote:and then claim to have credibility because you're using scientific data which you've hand picked and leave out the things that don't fit it. This is dishonest.

What have I left out?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13218
Age: 41

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#517  Postby Sendraks » Feb 26, 2014 10:47 am

questioner121 wrote:
It's you who has built this hierarchy. This would have no problem with fitting in a common design hierarchy..


Of course it has no problem fitting in a common design heirarchy. Because you can make anything fit WHEN YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP!

Science doesn't just "make things up" to arrive at a convenient answer and is prepared to say "it doesn't know" when it has yet to arrive at answer. Rather than resorting to the intellectually redundant approach of saying "magicman diddit."
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15242
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#518  Postby Bribase » Feb 26, 2014 12:54 pm

questioner121 wrote:
Yes he would. We have blind people, people without arms or legs, people with downs syndrome, people with autism, short people, etc. All these have been designed so that they can live their lives and we can observe them. Everything that can be observed in the universe has limitations as believers we believe everything has a purpose otherwise it would not exist.


You're tying to refute the issue of a flaw in the human genome being evidence of unguided evolutionary mechanisms by bringing up instances of flaws in human physiology.

To paraphrase:

"The lascivious emails sent to that secretary are in no way evidence of him having an affair, just look at all of the other women he's fucked! He does it all of the time!"

This is not a refutation, Questioner.

questioner121 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
I don't know why the designer is did this or what he's trying to achieve. It's you who is inferring evolution, creationists don't infer evolution and we're both looking at the same data.


Excuse me. You initiated your prescence on this thread, telling us that we are wrong when we say that creationists don't infer evolutionary mechanisms. You told us that they do, now you're saying that they don't again. Try to show some consistency in the future. Then again, it's far too much to ask from someone that requires an incredibly high bar for evidence of naturalistic explanations of our origins but presumes the existence of a mind that can author universes but can't make people's knees, backs, eyes, toenails and teeth (to name a few) properly without it having all of the hallmarks of evolution.
User avatar
Bribase
 
Posts: 2671
Age: 40
Male

Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#519  Postby hackenslash » Feb 26, 2014 2:11 pm

questioner121 wrote:Would you not expect some people to be able to produce their own vitamin C or maybe re-acquire the ability to do so? Doesn't ToE evolution postulate this due to variation?


Not necessarily, but it's certainly entirely possible that there are people today with this trait. It's not incredibly probable, but nothing actually prohibits it.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Questioning Darwin

#520  Postby hackenslash » Feb 26, 2014 2:16 pm

questioner121 wrote:What was the selection criteria for the broken gene to become prevalent in the population if it didn't give any advantage, wouldn't this be classed as a neutral mutation?


No, it would actually be a deleterious mutation, because we require vitamin C for survival. However, we descended from organisms that subsisted in large part on fruit that contained vitamin C, so the deleterious mutation wouldn't be selected against (in other words, our environment defines this as mildly deleterious; for sailors in the 17th century, it was extremely strongly deleterious, because it led to scurvy due to lack of fresh fruit, as Cali indicated above). As long as no strong selection operates on even a deleterious gene, drift can take it to fixation in a population reasonably quickly. There doesn't actually have to be a selection criteria [sic], because selection isn't the only mechanism behind evolution.

This is extremely basic stuff you don't grasp, yet you feel in a position to say that it's wrong, and that your unevidenced celestial peeping-tom is a better solution. :nono:

Edit: Additional for clarity.
User avatar
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 21914
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest