tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8823622159462840590..comments2024-03-19T00:24:23.577-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: This anti-science creationist could be Vice-President of the United States of AmericaLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger275125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9491344570878096572016-09-15T13:48:29.589-04:002016-09-15T13:48:29.589-04:00Lutesuite, it's just the usual "they'...Lutesuite, it's just the usual "they're closed minded" argument, with creationism referred to as "competing ideas" that are blocked out because of the insufferable strait jacket that we require evidence for it.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8354895879335517082016-09-15T13:25:41.975-04:002016-09-15T13:25:41.975-04:00"Homology can well be explained through commo...<i>"Homology can well be explained through common design. Thats common practice."</i><br /><br />No, it cannot. <a href="http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/phylogeny-the-bigger-picture/comment-page-1/#comment-131053" rel="nofollow">I have shown this here</a>. Nesting patterns of similarities in the way they exist in living organisms are proof of evolution and a falsification of design, for the logical and philosophical reasons I detail in that post. Mikkel Rumraket Rasmussenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07670550711237457368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16787799814969334082016-09-15T10:16:57.655-04:002016-09-15T10:16:57.655-04:00I'm impressed that, Diogenes and judmarc, that...I'm impressed that, <b>Diogenes</b> and <b>judmarc</b>, that you were able to extract enough meaning from <b>Denny's</b> obfuscatory bafflegab to formulate coherent and intelligent responses. Like, what does this mean, even?:<br /><br /><i>On what reasoned basis would anyone oppose competing ideas of how scientific theories should be viewed, especially with the scientific method as a tool and standard for validation?</i><br /><br />Anyone?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73169788329323804712016-09-14T20:51:05.049-04:002016-09-14T20:51:05.049-04:00I wouldn’t like you putting those words in my (cre...<i>I wouldn’t like you putting those words in my (creationist) mouth.</i><br /><br />Why not? To contend the Bible can be forced into some Procrustean version of scientific accuracy is ludicrous. If you're going to ignore a couple of centuries worth of confirmed scientific research findings (cross-confirming findings from hundreds of different branches of science, from cosmology to quantum mechanics to geology to biology and on and on), then don't try to duck the necessary implications; wear it frankly. You'd rather believe a couple thousand year old book than results coming out of supercolliders and space satellites. That's fine, but don't try to tell us it's just a matter of interpretation and inference. It's plain refusal of the overwhelming evidence.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22461333089014349842016-09-14T17:30:19.289-04:002016-09-14T17:30:19.289-04:00Denny: "you omitted two important words. Inte...Denny: <i>"you omitted two important words. Interpret and infer, which describe a necessary analytical part of the scientific method"</i> <br /><br />No. "Interpret" is inserted by creationists in order to make objective facts into opinions. Creationists say (for example) that there are no transitional fossils, then when presented with photos of transitional fossils, they say, "That's your interpretation!" Nope. Ain't buyin it.<br /><br /><i>Many Evolutionists (not all) interpret scientific findings and infer conclusions through the non-scientific lens/worldview of philosophical naturalism.</i><br /><br />Such as? We have the DNA comparisons. We have the fossils. Where "evolution produced the complexity and diversity of life" is concerned, we win. "Lens of philosophical naturalism" has nothing to do with it, evolutionary theory won by the scientific method.<br /><br /><i>Pence (not a scientist), might interpret and infer from what scientists discover through another lens that is free of naturalism and atheism.</i><br /><br />No. Pence is a creationist idiot who would only address evolution by making false statements about it-- not a "different interpretation", but false statements. <br /><br />Pence also says cigarettes never killed anybody and they don't cause cancer. You gonna call that a "different interpretation" too? Some things are facts, and some people lie about facts.<br /><br /><i>On what reasoned basis would anyone oppose competing ideas of how scientific theories should be viewed</i><br /><br />Competing scientific theories should be compared using the scientific method. Creationism to the contrary invokes God-of-the-Gaps which isn't the scientific method, AND it lies about scientific observations (e.g. "No transitional fossils! Human and chimp DNA are only 70% similar, not 98.7%! Human and dinosaur footprints coexist in Paluxy Texas! Radiometric dating has been debunked!")<br /><br />You are not at all realistic about how much lying goes into creationism! Every argument against evolution boils down to either statements that are factually false, OR redefinitions of the scientific method, like God-of-the-Gaps. We argue with them all the time. We know how the arguments go.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58638249762071922032016-09-14T15:48:40.762-04:002016-09-14T15:48:40.762-04:00Larry, I just read - "This anti-science creat...Larry, I just read - "This anti-science creationist … Pence." I luv ya man, but I think you’re putting words (“anti-science”) in Pence’s mouth. I wouldn’t like you putting those words in my (creationist) mouth. <br /> <br />The stuff of science informs and inspires everyone. Thanks to science, we enjoy, at least in temporal ways, an advanced way of living beyond our ancestor’s wildest dreams. At the same time, our advanced living standard has failed to solve innate human difficulties that have little to do with our worldly home, difficulties that cannot be put to scientific tests. That’s as much a reality as the Sun coming up tomorrow morning.<br /> <br />Evolution theory does make an apparent good model for explaining how things came to be. As a global all-encompassing truth, however, it fails factual verifiability in more ways than can be cited. <br /> <br />In “This anti-science creationist … Pence” post, you omitted two important words. Interpret and infer, which describe a necessary analytical part of the scientific method, and which also give anyone the opportunity to view scientific data differently (to which Pence alluded). Many Evolutionists (not all) interpret scientific findings and infer conclusions through the non-scientific lens/worldview of philosophical naturalism. Others, like Pence (not a scientist), might interpret and infer from what scientists discover through another lens that is free of naturalism and atheism.<br /> <br />The public pays for the progress of science, but not for a small and privileged community of hard working people, blessed to work in the field of natural science, to become masters of our thinking on things tangible (natural science) and intangible (theism and the supernatural). While I personally do not favor teaching scientific origin theories other than Evolution in public schools, I do believe tax-payer supported academic institutions should stimulate and encourage challenges.<br /> <br />I realize that some people could be viewed as anti-science, because they misinterpret the Genesis creation ‘days’ as 24-hour periods. But, I ask this question. On what reasoned basis would anyone oppose competing ideas of how scientific theories should be viewed, especially with the scientific method as a tool and standard for validation?<br />Dennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01847742418650448178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50691998932654624322016-08-18T17:43:58.489-04:002016-08-18T17:43:58.489-04:00Diogenes,
I'm not sure where Axe and Gauger m...Diogenes,<br /><br /><i>I'm not sure where Axe and Gauger made their error, but note that their method necessarily requires mathematical extrapolation, while Szostak's method doesn't. Szostak and co-workers actually created a library of 6 *10^12 random proteins with 80 amino acids and counted how many bound ATP. </i> <br /><br />Szostak and co-workers actually <b>created</b> a library of random proteins?<br /><br />I don't think this proves anything especially if you want to prove randomness all the way. You either have to substitute the term or your beliefs. <br /><br />BTW: How is Szostak doing with his progress on life? Or should I say recopying life that already exists?> From what I know not so good. Maybe you should present him with few pieces of evidence that convinced you that life came about by random, blind processes? He does need it especially if Donald Tramp takes the office. Nonsense research will be cut off.<br />Jmachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392421995310271733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-59155138237099988692016-08-18T08:43:20.792-04:002016-08-18T08:43:20.792-04:00Why are there cases where eukaryotic mitochondria ...<i>Why are there cases where eukaryotic mitochondria have linear genomes with eukaryotic telomeres ? </i><br /><br />Stockholm Syndrome?AllanMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05955231828424156641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62556784171105181652016-08-17T14:20:54.015-04:002016-08-17T14:20:54.015-04:00OK, Bill. So are you now going to provide the cal...OK, Bill. So are you now going to provide the calculations that lead you to conclude that spliceosomes could not have resulted from evolution? After you've addressed the other questions judmarc and I have asked, of course...l.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91523011176463528322016-08-17T13:14:15.688-04:002016-08-17T13:14:15.688-04:00Here is a paper w the yeast spliceosome protein nu...Here is a paper w the yeast spliceosome protein number.<br />Likewise, yeast C complexes contained only ∼50 proteins compared to ∼110 in metazoan C complexes. Altogether ∼90 proteins were identified in yeast spliceosomes, nearly all of which have homologs in higher eukaryotes (Fabrizio et al. 2009). Thus, the yeast splicing machinery likely contains the evolutionarily conserved, core set of spliceosomal proteins required for constitutive splicing. Indeed, most of the remaining ∼80 proteins found in human and D. melanogaster spliceosomes have no counterparts in yeast, with many playing a role in alternative splicing, a process that is essentially absent in yeast (Fabrizio et al. 2009).Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46490656741454277732016-08-17T12:36:16.219-04:002016-08-17T12:36:16.219-04:00Larry
"Is it reasonable to start your investi...Larry<br />"Is it reasonable to start your investigation with the largest most complex spliceosome you can find or with the smallest, simplest, spliceosome that can do the job? Which one is more likely to provide clues about the origin of the primitive spliceosome? "<br /><br />I agree. <br /><br />Do you have an example of a simple spliceosome to start with? Would yeast be the starting place? How did the first eukaryotic cell evolve given it contained a "simple" spliceosome? How do we evolve introns from prior genes that don't have them? Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66489530021144235622016-08-17T08:55:05.458-04:002016-08-17T08:55:05.458-04:00Bill -
Can you identify the basic probability mat...Bill -<br /><br />Can you identify the basic probability mathematics error in the following sentence?<br /><br />"The more ways there are for an event to occur, the less likely it is to happen."<br /><br />Now have a look at the following sentences by, umm, you:<br /><br /><i>If we take Larry's number of 80 "important" proteins and assume 300 AA per protein thats 24k AA's. The number of nucleotides to code for this is 72000. There are 4^72000 possible ways to arrange these nucleotides.</i><br /><br />Can you identify the same error as in the prior example?judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72230378861488004842016-08-17T06:11:19.947-04:002016-08-17T06:11:19.947-04:00I'm not sure that Bill is even aware that ther...I'm not sure that Bill is even aware that there is more than one type of spliceosome. His argument certainly doesn't seem to indicate that he does. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-5185252964406586472016-08-16T22:15:18.749-04:002016-08-16T22:15:18.749-04:00@Bill Cole
Let's pretend you are truly intere...@Bill Cole<br /><br />Let's pretend you are truly interested in understanding how the spliceosome evolved.<br /><br />Is it reasonable to start your investigation with the largest most complex spliceosome you can find or with the smallest, simplest, spliceosome that can do the job? Which one is more likely to provide clues about the origin of the primitive spliceosome? <br /><br />Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24349898741453397192016-08-16T15:12:52.399-04:002016-08-16T15:12:52.399-04:00Current evolutionary theory that claims a stochast...<i>Current evolutionary theory that claims a stochastic mechanism.</i><br /><br />Such as...?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67274738209133660432016-08-16T15:03:15.010-04:002016-08-16T15:03:15.010-04:00"It is also very unlikely that it is put toge..."It is also very unlikely that it is put together by tiny, invisible pixies. But no one claims it was. So what is your point?"<br /><br />Current evolutionary theory that claims a stochastic mechanism. The lack of a valid stochastic mechanism is a very large paradigm shift from what most people believe.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80474940532953973682016-08-16T14:45:45.525-04:002016-08-16T14:45:45.525-04:00It is very unlikely this molecular complex was the...<i>It is very unlikely this molecular complex was the result of a stochastic process.</i><br /><br />It is also very unlikely that it is put together by tiny, invisible pixies. But no one claims it was. So what is your point?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46302378871513152122016-08-16T14:35:44.742-04:002016-08-16T14:35:44.742-04:00lutesuite
"OK. So does that tell you how many...lutesuite<br />"OK. So does that tell you how many proteins comprise the average spliceosome? If so, what is the answer?"<br /><br />Do you really want to go through this drill? If it is between 80 and 500 who cares? There are papers that claim as many as 500. The problem for stochastic evolution is the same. If we take Larry's number of 80 "important" proteins and assume 300 AA per protein thats 24k AA's. The number of nucleotides to code for this is 72000. There are 4^72000 possible ways to arrange these nucleotides. These proteins must bind to RNA's and other proteins so they need specific sequences. It is very unlikely this molecular complex was the result of a stochastic process. Also this machine has to duplicate itself several times when the cell divides.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33673528222038193202016-08-16T14:24:08.014-04:002016-08-16T14:24:08.014-04:00The argument is simply against the stochastic theo...<i>The argument is simply against the stochastic theories of evolution.</i><br /><br />And you accuse others of strawmanning. The irony. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56658915979897835802016-08-16T14:20:57.109-04:002016-08-16T14:20:57.109-04:00lutesuite
" That's a direct quote. And do...lutesuite<br />" That's a direct quote. And do you not intend this as an argument against evolution?"<br /><br />The argument is simply against the stochastic theories of evolution.Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65116991628651425482016-08-16T14:20:09.337-04:002016-08-16T14:20:09.337-04:00Here is a backup paper from 2012.
Spliceosome Dat...<i>Here is a backup paper from 2012.<br /><br />Spliceosome Database: a tool for tracking components of the spliceosome</i><br /><br />OK. So does that tell you how many proteins comprise the average spliceosome? If so, what is the answer?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89483635090165204452016-08-16T14:14:39.391-04:002016-08-16T14:14:39.391-04:00I'm not strawmanning. I'm trying my best ...I'm not strawmanning. I'm trying my best to present your argument based on what you have written. But it's a bit like nailing Jello to the wall. So what did I get wrong? Did you not say your position is "It is very unlikely that life evolved through stochastic processes"? That's a direct quote. And do you not intend this as an argument against evolution?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-3927266511898399892016-08-16T14:13:48.397-04:002016-08-16T14:13:48.397-04:00lutesuite
Here is a backup paper from 2012.
Splic...lutesuite<br />Here is a backup paper from 2012.<br /><br />Spliceosome Database: a tool for tracking components of the spliceosome<br />Ivan Cvitkovic and Melissa S. Jurica*<br />+ Author AffiliationsBill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16484580490447260002016-08-16T14:06:16.842-04:002016-08-16T14:06:16.842-04:00lutesuite
"But you also need to address the l...lutesuite<br />"But you also need to address the logical fault in your argument, which is in presuming that if organisms currently inhabiting the earth could not have arisen thru "stochastic" processes, then they could not have arisen thru evolution, and were instead designed."<br /><br />Why do you continue to create a straw-man argument? Bill Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06642212549806694659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71416007396844343352016-08-16T14:03:02.028-04:002016-08-16T14:03:02.028-04:00I will just add that, if there are over 200 mammal...I will just add that, if there are over 200 mammalian spliceosomal proteins, but the typical spliceosome only requires about 80 proteins, that presents serious problems for your core argument that a functional protein can only exist in a single, specific form. Doesn't it? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com