tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4924807437919965115..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The evolution of the citric acid cycleLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger122125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-90601571222804181132021-01-05T17:49:15.291-05:002021-01-05T17:49:15.291-05:00I know this is an old post, but I am interested in...I know this is an old post, but I am interested in the evolution of metabolic pathways. I noticed this paper by Braakman and Smith and they seem to give the "opposite" of what you show...meaning that first there was a complete cycle and then a loss of one reaction led to a "forked" pathway. If I am not mistaken. But maybe I am wrong on this?<br /><br />https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002455Nesslig20https://www.blogger.com/profile/00209192071601766693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-30485877281891383622017-10-03T15:40:41.163-04:002017-10-03T15:40:41.163-04:00FYI - http://tinyurl.com/yafv788xFYI - http://tinyurl.com/yafv788xTom Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09829281784362177069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36214402469978365922017-03-02T06:24:51.617-05:002017-03-02T06:24:51.617-05:00What textbook are you reading?What textbook are you reading?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87358926610832678962017-03-02T00:46:09.538-05:002017-03-02T00:46:09.538-05:00That you SO much for these resources. I am bangin...That you SO much for these resources. I am banging my head on glycoslysis, the citric acid cycle the calvin cycle and the stoichiometry of the oxidative phosphorylisation that the NADH, ATP and NADPH energy provides. I can use all the help I get get. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33979822262816355872017-02-05T18:20:22.696-05:002017-02-05T18:20:22.696-05:00Can you test common descent without observing a sp...<i>Can you test common descent without observing a specie transition?</i><br /><br />First, I don't know how many times you've been told this, but "species" is the singular and plural both. "Specie" is money. A little point, but it annoys me.<br /><br />Second, yes, just as you can test all manner of things without observing them. Have you ever observed a carbon atom and seen its 6 protons? Have you seen Pluto make an orbit around the sun? Did you even read the examples provided in the bit you quoted? The only problem with the quote is that word "experiment". A better word would be "observations". An experiment is just an arrangement of conditions in order to make particular observations more likely. Repeated observations are the same thing, from the viewpoint of science, as repeated experiments. And a test of a hypothesis is just an examination of its compatibility with repeated observations. John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52021817708803534692017-02-05T14:05:24.072-05:002017-02-05T14:05:24.072-05:00From the design argument we know what human functi...<i>From the design argument we know what human functional designs look like.</i><br /><br />Yes. And it looks almost nothing like things that have arisen thru evolution. Can you identify the homologous genes shared by the internal combustion engine and a pair of scissors? Where is the phylogenetic classification, forming a nested hierarchy, of all the products of human design? Please provide the citation to this crucial piece of ID research. Obviously, this research must have been done. It's just too obvious a question not to be addressed.<br /><br />That's not to mention the fact that the "design argument" hasn't even attempted to identify the nature, origin, or mechanisms used by this mythical "designer" operates. You can stamp your feet and whine "That's not part of the argument" all you like. The goal of science is to elucidate and answer the questions raised by a hypothesis. Not just sweep them under the rug and hope they disappear. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57176342055806294492017-02-05T13:55:59.486-05:002017-02-05T13:55:59.486-05:00This is reliable because we can observe common des...<i>This is reliable because we can observe common descent among humans.</i><br /><br />Ah, yes. The infamous creationist "species barrier." So, remind, when was the research done that finally identified the mysterious force that prevents mutations occurring that would cause a genome to move out of its "kind." Bonus points for identifying what these "kinds" are and how they are differentiated.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7487349375343633402017-02-05T13:54:36.892-05:002017-02-05T13:54:36.892-05:00"we know what human functional designs look l..."we know what human functional designs look like"<br /><br />We also know that complicatedness in human functional designs can be unraveled. With accidental designs, the deeper you dig, the more complexity you find. txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71541634903608308812017-02-05T12:27:12.492-05:002017-02-05T12:27:12.492-05:00LS
"It is possible to use genetic testing to ...LS<br />"It is possible to use genetic testing to determine whether whether a person is a parent to another parent, and this is considered reliable enough to be used in a court of law. Do you not think this qualifies as "testing"? If you do, please show how it differs from the type of testing that demonstrates common ancestry? "<br /><br />This is reliable because we can observe common descent among humans. We can then generate a data set that when the DNA data is compared to it, we can have high confidence of paternity.<br /><br />We have not been able to observe common descent like this in nature except among like species. We can generate data but how do we know when a comparison is made that the two species share a common ancestor except as an a priori assumption based on Darwin's inference.<br /><br />Another problem with the common descent inference is that cells are designed to minimize variation. Evidence for this is DNA repair and apoptosis. To get the diversity we are observing through reproduction we would need lots of variation.<br /><br />From the design argument we know what human functional designs look like. This is the standard for which design in biology is compared. A human will rarely be fooled when comparing functional designs with non functional objects.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3481958747060518182017-02-05T08:55:30.332-05:002017-02-05T08:55:30.332-05:00Just bumping this so Bill doesn't lose track o...Just bumping this so Bill doesn't lose track of the conversation.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5692776493457236162017-02-04T18:48:41.378-05:002017-02-04T18:48:41.378-05:00Experiments may test the theory directly (for exam...<i>Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle).</i><br /><br />Way to go, Bill. You just shot down your own argument. And I bet you're too stupid to even realize that's what you've done. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-44159237996731768192017-02-04T18:47:23.088-05:002017-02-04T18:47:23.088-05:00Sorry, Bill, but this is Sandwalk. It's not U...Sorry, Bill, but this is Sandwalk. It's not Uncommon Descent or some other blog run by intellectually deficient creationists. You can't just make up shit like this distinction between "collection of evidence" and "testing a hypothesis."<br /><br />It is possible to use genetic testing to determine whether whether a person is a parent to another parent, and this is considered reliable enough to be used in a court of law. Do you not think this qualifies as "testing"? If you do, please show how it differs from the type of testing that demonstrates common ancestry? <br /><br /><i>Humans are reliable at picking out functional designs. There is an argument that we can test design through observation.</i><br /><br />By this standard of "testing" it has been proven that the sun orbits the earth, and not the other way around, because that is how it seems to humans. Is that how you suggest we "test" hypotheses, and no longer use the "collection of evidence"?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38577594968535670212017-02-04T16:29:40.555-05:002017-02-04T16:29:40.555-05:00John
From introduction to the scientific method:
...John<br />From introduction to the scientific method:<br /><br />"II. Testing hypotheses<br /><br />As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories."<br /><br />Can you test common descent without observing a specie transition?Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25295958317057550942017-02-04T16:15:32.509-05:002017-02-04T16:15:32.509-05:00LS
"Why do you keep repeating this lie, Bill ...LS<br />"Why do you keep repeating this lie, Bill Cole? In addition to Theobald, explain how this is not a test of common descent:"<br /><br />It is a collection of evidence. The testing of it is a lot more complicated. The strongest evidence is non functional genes being present in multiple species. Non function is however a hypothesis that is not fully tested.<br /><br />Design is actually easier to test then universal common descent. Design you have to show one example for UCD you have to show how several of transitions occurred.<br /><br />Humans are reliable at picking out functional designs. There is an argument that we can test design through observation.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65170365470747111052017-02-03T20:23:30.930-05:002017-02-03T20:23:30.930-05:00Ahhh...now I understand (not really).
After watch...Ahhh...now I understand (not really).<br /><br />After watching Gervais on Colbert, I'd like to pose another question:<br /><br />If a catastrophic event wiped out all humans, save for a small group of inquisitive adolescents boys and girls...all of whom were raised in a non-religious community (bear with me, please).<br /><br />If they were to re-populate the Earth, what sort of "books" would we see 2,000 years from now?<br /><br />I agree with Gervais...the science books would essentially be the same - cell theory, germ theory, gravity, atomic theory, quantum theory, biological evolution theory (based on population genetics), et. al.<br /><br />On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc., would exist in any form, whatsoever.<br /><br />What say you?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10799782328170042096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18445240432112110372017-02-03T20:02:45.850-05:002017-02-03T20:02:45.850-05:00ID is an inference argument. So is universal commo...<i>ID is an inference argument. So is universal common descent. They are both claims that have yet to be fully tested.</i><br /><br />Why do you keep repeating this lie, Bill Cole? In addition to Theobald, explain how this is not a test of common descent:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm</a><br /><br />There are many other examples.<br /><br />OTOH, why has "design" not been tested yet? The Discovery Institute has received millions of dollars over the past 20 years. What have they been doing with all that money?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70058911705253784502017-02-03T18:01:19.080-05:002017-02-03T18:01:19.080-05:00ID is an inference argument. So is universal commo...<i>ID is an inference argument. So is universal common descent. They are both claims that have yet to be fully tested.</i><br /><br />This is your ignorance of science talking again. All science is inference. Inference from data is how claims are tested. Is it necessary to link to Theobald 2010 again?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04478895397136729867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78604083807864849992017-02-03T16:30:23.722-05:002017-02-03T16:30:23.722-05:00LS
"Bill doesn't seem to realize the admi...LS<br />"Bill doesn't seem to realize the admission he is making by saying ID Creationism is "independent" of those observations. The strength of a scientific theory is based on the number and specificity of the observations it can predict and explain. The seeming paradox is that the fact that ID Creationism is not affected by observations regarding the age of the earth or the existence of junk DNA demonstrates its weakness as a scientific hypothesis (assuming it is even a hypothesis in the first place.)"<br /><br />ID is an inference argument. So is universal common descent. They are both claims that have yet to be fully tested. If LUCA turned out to be a super cell with all information required for the diversity of life packed in it, then as Behe says they could both possible be true.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15437259489886971562017-02-03T07:23:58.662-05:002017-02-03T07:23:58.662-05:00A sister, but it was Seth.
Sorry, but even if tha...<i>A sister, but it was Seth.</i><br /><br />Sorry, but even if that event, so extremely significant but never mentioned for some reason, would have taken place, it is hard to see that sort of inbreeding leading to success of a species. With real biology and evolution you have breeding <i>populations</i>, and you don't run into this sort of elementary, fundamental problem unless the breeding population gets very small. When people are attempting to rescue endangered species with captive breeding programs, for example, these sorts of things require very close attention.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66915012428980758132017-02-03T07:17:21.360-05:002017-02-03T07:17:21.360-05:00Genesis is a record (actually a collection of indi...<i><b>Genesis is</b> a record (actually a collection of individual records), <b>not a science textbook</b>.</i><br /><br />Yet it enables one to know more geology than a couple of centuries of geologists, more biology than a century and a half of biologists, more nuclear physics than a century of physicists.... How very convenient.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-57826187123666696782017-02-02T16:03:40.758-05:002017-02-02T16:03:40.758-05:00Bill doesn't seem to realize the admission he ...Bill doesn't seem to realize the admission he is making by saying ID Creationism is "independent" of those observations. The strength of a scientific theory is based on the number and specificity of the observations it can predict and explain. The seeming paradox is that the fact that ID Creationism is not affected by observations regarding the age of the earth or the existence of junk DNA demonstrates its weakness as a scientific hypothesis (assuming it is even a hypothesis in the first place.)<br /><br />Evolutionary theory, OTOH, would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with a 6000 yr old earth. And the discovery of junk DNA is part of the evidence that forced the modification of evolutionary theory to include neutral theory.<br /><br />Wheras, if Bill is to be believed (and why wouldn't he be?) ID Creationism is unaffected by whether common descent exists or not, whether junk DNA exists or not, whether the earth is over 4 billion years old or less than 10,000.<br /><br />That doesn't show a "theory" that is robust. It shows one whose explanatory and predictive power is zilch.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-70311640684360563162017-02-02T15:18:07.664-05:002017-02-02T15:18:07.664-05:00Bill,
"I believe Behe is right that the desi...Bill,<br /><br />"I believe Behe is right that the design argument is independent of common descent. I also agree with him that it is independent of the junk DNA discussion."<br /><br />How could ID be independent of common descent? Either life forms are descended from other life forms or they aren't. What does ID claim, and why?<br /><br />How could ID be independent of the junk DNA discussion? To the extent that there is junk DNA, the intelligent designer would had to have consciously put it there, right?Chris Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04778164246719803780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3843836695172644702017-02-02T13:48:11.715-05:002017-02-02T13:48:11.715-05:00Terminus Est,
“Nevermind, my real question is...w...Terminus Est,<br /><br />“Nevermind, my real question is...with whom did Cain have sex with in order to populate the Earth?”<br /><br />A sister, but it was Seth. Cain’s descendants were wiped out. <br />-<br />“I don't see how someone…can read the bible, use it as THE official science textbook and not feel stupid.”<br /><br />Genesis is a record (actually a collection of individual records), not a science textbook. There is a technical reason for why you would feel stupid.<br />txpiperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03645156881353741058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85722301953669356412017-02-02T13:34:40.043-05:002017-02-02T13:34:40.043-05:00I will also add, Bill Cole, that (true to form) yo...I will also add, Bill Cole, that (true to form) you did not answer Larry's question. He did not ask your personal opinion. He asked if the consensus of ID creationists agrees with Behe's claims i.e. whether Behe's claims are reflective of the theory of Intelligent Design. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50640956908608782232017-02-02T13:32:01.381-05:002017-02-02T13:32:01.381-05:00The design argument does not explain how the desig...<i>The design argument does not explain how the design was implemented. It simply assigns intelligent cause to certain observations in nature.</i><br /><br />On what basis does it do so? Exactly what is an "argument", in your view, and was is its epistemological status as compared to a scientific theory, such as evolution, which provides detailed and specific explanations for phenomena, explanations which are supported by an enormous amount of empirical evidence?<br /><br />Here's how it appears to me: If we see a tiger, you might have an "argument" that it is actually a zebra, on the basis that zebras have stripes and the tiger also has stripes. However, I would respond by pointing out the many morphological differences between tigers and zebras that demonstrate that the former belongs to the cat family. And I would even be able to support this with molecular genetic evidence showing that the tiger is more closely related to other cats than to a zebra.<br /><br />Your response to this, if you are true to form, would be to say that physical morphology and molecular genetics are "not part of the 'tigers are zebras' argument" and that "It seems more plausible to me that tigers are zebras."<br /><br />Personally, I would not find that argument particularly persuasive. Why do you think I should? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com