Researchers discover new class of objects encoded within the genome

Oct 06, 2010

Despite progress in decoding the genome, scientists estimate that fully 95 percent of our DNA represents dark, unknown territory. In the October 1 issue of the journal Cell researchers at The Wistar Institute shed new light on the genetic unknown with the discovery of the ability of long non-coding RNA (ncRNA) to promote gene expression. The researchers believe these long ncRNA molecules may represent so-called gene enhancer elements—short regions of DNA that can increase gene transcription. While scientists have known about gene enhancers for decades, there has been no consensus about how these enhancers work.

These findings join a growing body of evidence that the classic "central dogma" of genetics is incomplete. In the central dogma, chromosomal is transcribed into RNA, which is then translated by the cell into proteins. In recent years, however, scientists have found that not all transcribed RNA molecules become translated into proteins. In fact, studies have shown that whole swathes of the are transcribed for unknown reasons.

In the present study, the Wistar researchers pinpoint 3,000 long ncRNAs and estimate that there could be a total of between 10,000 to 12,000 long ncRNA sequences within our DNA. This number is comparable to the 20,000 genes that are known to encode proteins. Most long ncRNAs are encoded in DNA near genes known to be important to both and cancer. This observation also suggests that targeting ncRNAs may represent a new strategy in slowing cancer growth.

"We are excited, first of all, because this is a new discovery about the very nature of human DNA; a new class of genetic object and a new layer of genetic regulation," said Ramin Shiekhattar, Ph.D., Wistar's Herbert Kean, M.D., Family Professor and senior author of the study.

"Secondly, we may have solved, in part, a great mystery in modern genetics. These long non-coding RNA sequences may account for the activity of enhancer elements, which have been well-studied but never quite characterized," Shiekhattar said.

Almost three years ago, while at the Centre for Genomic Regulation in Barcelona, Spain, Shiekhattar began a prospective hunt for non-coding RNA sequences using GENCODE, a database that annotates the human genome with currently available scientific evidence. After filtering out protein-coding transcripts and non-coding RNAs that might overlap known protein-coding genes, they found approximately 3,000 long ncRNA sequences. At the time, GENCODE only accounted for a third of the genome, so Shiekhattar estimates that there are likely more.

The researchers mapped the ncRNA sites within the genome, and found that ncRNAs tended to be located near genes that influence how stem cells change into other cell types. Shiekhattar and his colleagues then developed new assays to screen cell cultures for these ncRNA sequences, and discovered that ncRNAs were found extensively in a variety of cell types.

The idea that molecules of can have a DNA-regulating effect is well established. More than 1,000 so-called microRNAs are known to science, for example, and their effect on silencing genes has been well described. According to Shiekhattar, he assumed that long ncRNAs would also silence genes, not promote their activation. To his surprise, the researchers found that depleting a cell of ncRNAs actually decreased the degree of overall of neighboring genes, revealing a role for ncRNAs in potentiating gene expression.

In fact, when Shiekhattar and his colleagues depleted adult stem cells of a specific long ncRNA, known as ncRNA-activating 7 (ncRNA-a7), it had the same effect as depleting the protein product of a nearby gene, Snai1, which regulates how the cells migrate. Their studies further showed that inserting an ncRNA next to a gene for luciferase—the enzyme responsible for a firefly's glow—increased the amount of protein produced by that gene in cells grown in culture. While not all long ncRNAs may act like enhancers, the majority of the ones the team studied do, Shiekhattar says.

"We know long non-coding RNAs can promote gene expression, but what we need to know now is how they do it," Shiekhattar said, "which is precisely the object of our ongoing research plan."

Explore further: Brand new technology detects probiotic organisms in food

Provided by The Wistar Institute

4.8 /5 (29 votes)

Related Stories

Opening and closing the genome

Feb 22, 2007

At any given time, most of the roughly 30,000 genes that constitute the human genome are inactive, or repressed, closed to the cellular machinery that transcribes genes into the proteins of the body. In an average cell, only ...

Recommended for you

Brand new technology detects probiotic organisms in food

22 hours ago

In the food industr, ity is very important to ensure the quality and safety of products consumed by the population to improve their properties and reduce foodborne illness. Therefore, a team of Mexican researchers ...

Protein evolution follows a modular principle

22 hours ago

Proteins impart shape and stability to cells, drive metabolic processes and transmit signals. To perform these manifold tasks, they fold into complex three-dimensional shapes. Scientists at the Max Planck ...

Report on viruses looks beyond disease

Jul 22, 2014

In contrast to their negative reputation as disease causing agents, some viruses can perform crucial biological and evolutionary functions that help to shape the world we live in today, according to a new report by the American ...

User comments : 250

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Donutz
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2010
This really isn't a surprise. Anyone in IT could have told you that the classic DNA theory just didn't have enough information density. And a naturally evolving system would of necessity be non-linear, where a small change would make a big difference. Homeoboxes were a step in the right direction (think 'gosub') and this is more of the same.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (30) Oct 06, 2010
This really isn't a surprise. Anyone in IT could have told you that the classic DNA theory just didn't have enough information density. And a naturally evolving system would of necessity be non-linear, where a small change would make a big difference. Homeoboxes were a step in the right direction (think 'gosub') and this is more of the same.


The irony is that this "For loop" is strong evidence for creation, as I have previously made the information argument in the past.

Unfortunately, the majority of this site's users are hard atheists who are blinded to the very simple truth.

The belief that this website required a designer due to it's complexity, while simultaneously believing mankind evolved randomly from an ape going back to a molecule is wholly irational and insanity.

"This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (27) Oct 06, 2010
In a very real sense, this is object oriented programming, in that the ncRNA is a "function" produced by the DNA housed adjacent to the gene it is meant to operate on, in the form of determining the number and type of expressions of said gene, which is far more efficient than making 10 extra copies of those genes.

Once again, this is further evidence of forward thinking and design in the genetic code, and certainly far from the random chaos proposed by the false science of "evolutionary biology," but rather pointing ultimately to the neccessity of the Creator God.

"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors." - Isaac Newton

"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." - Isaac Newton
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (24) Oct 06, 2010
The irony is that this "For loop" is strong evidence for creation, as I have previously made the information argument in the past.
Why? Once a system began reusing and reapplying bits of their already present DNA, rather than creating new expanses of code, that process would be selected for as it greatly reduces the amount of work energy needed to replicate.

The same reason why we developed the for loop in computer code is why nature developed it spontaneously...

It cuts down on the amount of effort required. Anytime you reduce the workload within a system, that reduction is implemented regularly unless other issues are found.

And Isaac Newton is a rather poor example to use against evolution. Simply look at the amount of knowledge they had on biology in that day and age.
SteveL
5 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2010
The genome is an incredible multi-dimentional puzzle that we are only touching the surface of.

It's funny that for some we learn a bit and pause, supposing we know all there is to know. Yet a few others keep pushing for more because they sense that the picture is still incomplete. My hat is figuratively off to those few who keep incessantly pushing against the boundaries of human ignorance.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (27) Oct 06, 2010
SH:

A "for loop," to use the term loosely, is a rather complex machine in and of itself.

Now while a gene enhancer need not technically be a logical loop, it is serving the same purpose.

And no, you cannot weasel out of this, because in the theory of evolution, mutation happens supposedly by accident, in which accidenal copies or deletions of genes are alleged to cause speciation over time, and then "good" DNA supposedly has an advantage over "bad".

Whereas in the real world, as we see in this article, DNA is in a highly controlled structure, and genes are regulated and expressed by independent complex structures.

The hypocrissy of your assertion that "nature" developed a for loop spontaneously while we know it requires intelligence to do so in reality, is quite alarming.

You are speaking as a mad man, seeing as how you would have us believe in molecule to man evolution with no designer. No computer code has assembled itself randomly, and in particular no for loops.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (26) Oct 06, 2010
And no, you cannot weasel out of this, because in the theory of evolution, mutation happens supposedly by accident, in which accidenal copies or deletions of genes are alleged to cause speciation over time, and then "good" DNA supposedly has an advantage over "bad".
No they don't. Evolution is driven by the non-random survival of randomly generated organisms over time and throughout populations. There are no "good" or "bad" mutations.
The hypocrissy of your assertion that "nature" developed a for loop spontaneously while we know it requires intelligence to do so in reality, is quite alarming.

You make far too many assumptions and operate from a predeterminative stance that is contradictory to all current evidence.
You are speaking as a mad man, seeing as how you would have us believe in molecule to man evolution with no designer.
Must be a mad, mad world in your opinion. All life is composed entirely of non-life. The world isn't mad, but perhaps you are.
pauljpease
4.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2010
The genome is an incredible multi-dimentional puzzle that we are only touching the surface of.

It's funny that for some we learn a bit and pause, supposing we know all there is to know. Yet a few others keep pushing for more because they sense that the picture is still incomplete. My hat is figuratively off to those few who keep incessantly pushing against the boundaries of human ignorance.


Absolutely! I happen to be a researcher in the field, and it is amazing to me how UNcurious most scientists are about these foundational issues. They see DNA as letters of text on a DNA screen, and most have no intuition about the physical molecule itself, and how physics, geometry, etc play fundamental informational roles. The lazy description in this article is a symptom of this problem For example, the article states that ncRNAs have an enhancing effect, then claim that they inserted ncRNAs into the genome. Sorry, you can't put RNA into the DNA genome... tbc
pauljpease
5 / 5 (7) Oct 06, 2010
... you can only insert DNA that codes for the ncRNA into the genome. Which begs the question of whether the ncRNA molecule itself has anything to do with the enhancing effect, or whether it is just the process of transcribing the ncRNA from the DNA, which happens to be next to other genes, that really has the enhancing effect. It is well known that transcription is a complicated topological process and the topological effects of transcription in one area of the genome can affect transcription in neighboring areas. Easy to test this hypothesis. Put different ncRNA "genes" into the same place, and see if they have the same effect. If the effect is due to the actual ncRNA molecule it likely depends on the sequence of the ncRNA, but if it is just due to the mere act of transcription itself in that area of the genome, then the effect shouldn't depend much on the specific sequence of the ncRNA. If the effect depends on the diffusable ncRNA, why does it need to be next to the affected gene?
pauljpease
5 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2010
sorry, replace "DNA screen" with "computer screen"! lol
Donutz
4.8 / 5 (22) Oct 06, 2010

The belief that this website required a designer due to it's complexity, while simultaneously believing mankind evolved randomly from an ape going back to a molecule is wholly irational and insanity.


This is type of comment is similar to the 'self-assembling clock' analogy that creationists constantly use because in their ignorance of the subject they think it makes a good argument. All it does is underline the fact that the speaker is scientifically illiterate. Complexity builds from non-complexity ALL THE TIME in the real world. It happens and will continue to happen whenever there's an energy gradient.
Donutz
4.6 / 5 (20) Oct 06, 2010
Unfortunately, the majority of this site's users are hard atheists who are blinded to the very simple truth.


You know what? I'm tired of this pattern, where the creationist makes some assanine throwaway comments based on their fairy-tale belief, everyone else points out the obvious, and the creationist goes away scott free, totally ignoring what's said. Next day, same thing. Well, let's try something different. QC, your belief that this universe is 'designed' is based on faith-only belief in a magical sky fairy for which there is absolutely no proof. The basis for the belief in this sky fairy is a set of books that purport to be his word. Not only is there no proof that that is so, there is PLENTY of proof that said books are nothing but a collection of folklore and myths, collected by a priesthood in the first millenium BCE with the primary intention of controlling the populace by controlling the beliefs.

... continue...
Donutz
4.3 / 5 (23) Oct 06, 2010
... The etiology of the new testament is even more suspect, in that the books in it were picked 300 years later by a group of religious/political leaders based on nothing more than the type of horse trading that goes on in congress all the time. And said books weren't even written by the people they're credited to. Those names were attached arbitrarily after the fact.

The last, and biggest hurdle to taking you seriously is that you actually have never given anyone any reason to believe that your brand of insanity is any more credible than for instance the hindu creation myths or the native american creation myths, or those of the australian aboriginals, or any other set.

You're playing in the junior midget league and making noise like you're in the Stanley Cup finals.

First, prove that a deity or deities exist. Then prove it's your version. Then prove it actually cares about us. Then prove that it actually dictated your written fairy tales. Then we'll talk.
Parsec
4.4 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2010
The idea that everyone that believes firmly in evolution is an atheist is complete nonsense. I understand that evolution is incompatible with the Christian fundamentalist very narrow and proscribed notion of God. But extrapolating that into all systems of belief is plain ignorant. Even within the Christian system of belief, many faiths are quite comfortable with evolution.

This new wrinkle on the complexity of DNA doesn't really change the overall incredible complexity of the system however. It just adds a few more decimal places to the magnitude. I have high confidence that eventually we will see how the system of RNA modification of gene activity evolved from far simpler systems.
Donutz
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 06, 2010
Until you do any of that (and I'm not holding my breath) you are no more credible that a monkey up a tree, throwing sticks at what's frightening it.
Donutz
4.5 / 5 (18) Oct 06, 2010
Even within the Christian system of belief, many faiths are quite comfortable with evolution.


Heck, Parsec, you've completely understated the issue. Creationism is almost completely an American phenomenon, and even then only among fundamentalists. In any other country in the world, they vary between 'small minority' and non-existant. The official stance of the Catholic Church since Vatican II is that science is essentially correct in the broad strokes. It's just a relatively small group of loud mental defectives that push this stupidity.
trekgeek1
4.4 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2010
@ Quantum

Go f**k yourself. Really, you come on here bashing atheists and asserting your back assward beliefs. You are a perfect example of the god of the gaps argument. essentially, "we don't understand it yet, so it's jeebus". Complicated and amazing doesn't imply magic or creation. Yeah, this site was built by intelligence, because it doesn't replicate, mutate and is not subject to natural selection. Glad you think your argument from authority will hold up, quoting Newton left and right. Wasn't he also an alchemist? So keep spitting on science and jerkin to jesus.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (19) Oct 06, 2010
S_H:

You are very much like the unjust judge at O.J. Simpson's trial, throwing out any evidence you don't want to be bothered with.

Just because you ignore common sense and real historical facts isn't going to make them go away.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2010
I wonder if these ncRNA sequences are triggers that react to environmental or other pressures, and capable of producing a Lamarckian-type of effect in the genome, in addition to plain old random mutation?

Could this account for the "Punctuated Equilibrium", explosive diversification observed in the evolutionary record?

Donutz
4.5 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2010

You are very much like the unjust judge at O.J. Simpson's trial, throwing out any evidence you don't want to be bothered with.


Pot. Kettle. Black.


Just because you ignore common sense and real historical facts isn't going to make them go away.


Nice throwaway line. No backup, no detail. So, any progress on coming up with evidence for the existance of your sky fairy? BTW, I forgot Scientology (aliens made us) and the version of the hereafter in "Stranger In A Strange Land", where *all* the afterlifes exist. And hey, both of them have just as much evidence as the christian version (i.e. none).

Take your time...
PinkElephant
4.9 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2010
@Caliban,

Why would you expect ncRNA to respond in a qualitatively different way than regular genes? Yes, RNA is known to regulate gene expression. But genes (and proteins) regulate each other just as well. When it comes to inter-dependencies, the whole thing is really quite a tangled and recurrent mess.

As I've known it, Punctuated Equilibrium refers to niche-clearing events (like mass extinctions), that allow sub-optimal organisms to enter recently-vacated niches and optimize for them (thereby resulting in rapid speciation.) Once all niches are occupied by highly-optimized organisms, it becomes much less likely for lots of new species to emerge over a short span of time, because most new-fangled mutants typically aren't as fit for any given niche, as populations that had been adapting to that niche for millions of years.

Beyond that, of course gradual accumulation of ineffectual small mutations can indeed "blossom" into a major change with only a small incremental alteration.
TechnoCore
4.5 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2010
@Quantum: I feel sad when I read your posts. Sad for you and for humanity.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2010
S_H:

You are very much like the unjust judge at O.J. Simpson's trial, throwing out any evidence you don't want to be bothered with.
Then present some evidence. As so far, your argument is "la, la,la, god did it because I don't understand it and I don't care to learn it".
Just because you ignore common sense and real historical facts isn't going to make them go away.
Would you care to show me how your posts hold any sense whatsoever? You have 6 people, two of which work in the genetics field showing you mountains of peer reviewed evidence showing the fallacy of your statements.

Prove us wrong, by showing your demonstrable evidence, or go away. If you can't play the game, don't get mad at the rules.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2010
Since we're on the topic, I recently had the displeasure of testifying before a local school board about creationism and equal time.

The solution to preventing equal time was easy. Tell them, if they're going to do equal time, they must present all creation myths, this was laughed at. So in rebuttal I presented the top ten, also laughed at. I was then asked to drop it down to top 3.

Well, at that point in time, the case was won by those insisting on evolution only. Christian creationism ranks 6th when it comes to world wide adherants.

So to those who are insisting on equal time, ensure you're really asking for equal time for all myths, and not just your own. You may be surprised at how few people really believe in the same tripe you do.
AtomThick
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2010
I have no problem in believing either that we have evolved from a bacteria or that we reprezent the act of creation of a more complex being. However if we were created by a more complex being then I have to ask myself: "Who did create the complex being?", did it evolved from a bacteria (or some other mysterious form of energy) or was it created by some other more complex being? As one can see the creationism is an infinite recurrent process which as far as I am concerned can't exist in reality therefore everything should have begun with an evolution. (But that does not settle the problem of our own existence...)
Donutz
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2010
(But that does not settle the problem of our own existence...)


Sorry, do you mean the existance of humans specifically (as opposed to intelligent hamsters for instance), or do you mean the existance of intelligent beings, or the existance of multicellular organisms, or the existance of life at all? You need to be specific before the question can be dealt with.
Donutz
4.2 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2010
Since we're on the topic, I recently had the displeasure of testifying before a local school board about creationism and equal time.


In Canada, we wouldn't have quite as much of a problem -- partly because the creationist movement isn't as big, and partly because any board that tried to laugh off your suggestion would find themselves on the wrong end of a number of lawsuits.

Having said that, I've sometimes wondered if your idea wouldn't be the best and quickest way of taking care of the problem. The course would be taught by a science teacher who would not only give all creation myths equal time but would carefully explain the whole concept of falsifiability and testability. And no pastor/priest/church elder in the room to muddy the waters.

AtomThick
2 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
(But that does not settle the problem of our own existence...)


Sorry, do you mean the existance of humans specifically (as opposed to intelligent hamsters for instance), or do you mean the existance of intelligent beings, or the existance of multicellular organisms, or the existance of life at all? You need to be specific before the question can be dealt with.


Pick one of them, the one you like the most... :)
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2010
[...]

@PE,

All good points, and noted. My post was speculative, to be sure, but still within the realm of possibility, even if remote.

No harm in throwing it out there.

Donutz
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2010
Pick one of them, the one you like the most... :)


Well the first two are just happenstance IMO. It could just as easily have been hamsters. Or no intelligent species at all. Our existance is an eyeblink on the scale of time that life has been around, so it's obviously not an inevitability. And although I think a case could be made for an intelligent tool-user to be a land dweller, beyond that there's nothing inevitable about an anthropod getting the nod.
In terms of the last two, as I mentioned earlier, physical systems are chaotic, not laminar. Wherever there's an energy gradient, you'll get change. Any change that reproduces itself (even as simple as a growing crystal) will take over the environment from processes that DON'T grow.

I'm running out of chars so I'll continue next post.
Donutz
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
cont'd

When I was young and stupid and a member of the baptist church, I was at one of those prayer meetings where they have a guest speaker in to debunk evolution. He used as his example a box full of checkers pieces, which he tossed onto a table with the comment that according to evolution they should come out sorted and stacked. I pointed out (even then I didn't like pat demos) that to be accurate, he should use magnetized checker pieces, and they probably WOULD come out that way.

He told me it was teh devil speaking through me and I should pray for clarity. That was really just about the nail in the coffin for me as far as religion was concerned.

The point is, atoms are predisposed to combine certain ways. Proteins, carbs, etc arent' random structures -- they're pretty inevitable given a supply of raw materials and some energy.
Donutz
4.3 / 5 (13) Oct 08, 2010
Just to add a specific example, because I feel like beating a dead horse right now, creationists are always all whatever about spontaneous increases in complexity without a creator or designer. Well, here's one that happens all the time. Take a random batch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms (can't get more random than that) and apply a flame or a spark (with lightning, you don't even need someone to do it) and voila --- H2O molecules. By any measure, more complex and organized than h+O soup, and no designing required.
THis is a trivial and trite example, but the point is that these type of reactions happen ALL THE TIME in nature. The increase in complexity is balanced by the atoms seeking a lower energy level by engaging in an exothermic reaction.
Creationists are able to ignore this because of their inate ability to plug their ears, cover their eyes, and plug their mouths with only two hands while yelling LA LA LA LA whenever bad facts come around.
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 08, 2010
...the point is that these type of reactions happen ALL THE TIME in nature. The increase in complexity is balanced by the atoms seeking a lower energy level by engaging in an exothermic reaction.

Well said. There are other examples of emergent complexity from simple units following simple rules such as cellular automata which has applications from games (game of life) to self assembly and possibly explaining physical reality (Stephen Wolfram’s New Kind of Science). The universe abounds with examples of emergent structure from very basic building blocks.
Javinator
5 / 5 (12) Oct 08, 2010
The belief that this website required a designer due to it's complexity, while simultaneously believing mankind evolved randomly from an ape going back to a molecule is wholly irational and insanity.


Syllogism time!
A = A Website
B = A designer
C = Everything that has ever been ever

Your logic:
All A requires B
A is a part of C
Therefore all C requires B

This is a logical fallacy (see Fallacy of the undistributed middle below)

http://en.wikiped...d_middle

If you presented a logical argument people might actually listen.
CaptBarbados
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2010
An interesting thought...

What if part of our "junk DNA" is somehow a message from the past?

I've always wondered if any advanced civilization sought to preserve its historical records somewhere safe and enduring, would DNA be an excellent data storage medium? I understand that extinction events represent an aspect of fallibity regarding this idea, but what an interesting possibility.

I wonder if some day, our scientists will be analyzing DNA from many sources, trying to decipher a "message in a bottle?"

Is something like this remotely feasible? If a past civilization (not even from this planetary neighborhood) had deeper knowledge than we do presently, would strands of DNA even have sufficient storage capacity?

DamienS
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 10, 2010
would DNA be an excellent data storage medium?

Nope. In fact, I can't think of a worse storage medium. You realize that DNA is the mechanism by which organisms CHANGE? If you wanted to preserve a message for the ages, you'd be much better off writing in granite.
nada
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
See also: http://www.physor...281.html

A flower has 50 times longer genome that humans - so for you bible thumpers: Since man is created in God's image (we have god's genome), how can God create something MORE complex that himself? God must therefore be a FLOWER and He is not our God afterall. Sorry to burst your bubble of living in white marble palaces in heaven next to Jesus and George W. Bush. ;-)
tigger
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2010
QC, you type your messages on your computer which is the result of many enquiring minds who were brave enough to challenge those around them... many times at great risk to their lives... and you have the arrogance to spit in the face of science over and over and over.

You probably think that those minds, many of whom were atheists, were guided by the hand of god... "servants to those that believe"... how disgusting.

The scientific method and an enquiring mind have given more potential to humanity than any amount of prayer or belief.

Your closed mind that hungers for an eternally unchanging reality is child like and irrational. I feel compassion for you, not at all in an arrogant way, but because I suspect that part of you knows that you're clinging onto something irrational and I feel sad about that.
RIL
1 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2010
Donutz: >> First, prove that a deity or deities exist. Then prove it's your version. Then prove it actually cares about us. Then prove that it actually dictated your written fairy tales. Then we'll talk."

OK, first I try to prove that you exist, and only than I'm allowed to try prove that you wrote your post, no?

Again, must I first prove that you exist before we can talk, or would it suffice to recognize your posts as evidence for your existence (and that you care about posting to us) and only then we go about talking?

Sigh.
RIL
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 10, 2010
tigger wrote >> "...you type your messages on your computer... result of many enquiring minds... "

You mean intelligent design?

tigger wrote >> "and you have the arrogance to spit in the face of science over and over and over."

You mean intelligenet design? or you meant spitting the Creator God in the face?

tigger wrote >> "You probably think that those minds, many of whom were atheists, were guided by the hand of god... how disgusting"

Those atheists were made by the hand of the Creator God, that is, the atheists were intelligently designed.

Disgusting? Well. In any case, the atheists could potentially improve their attitude. If they wanted.

Even the ability to be an atheist is as designed.
RIL
1 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2010
nada >> A flower has 50 times longer genome that humans... God's image (we have god's genome), how can God create something MORE complex that himself?"

Wrong. God used LESS complex code for flowers. Semantically more complex code is more compact, like using loops and such.

Besides, the ancient hebrew for "image" was an idiom depicting a persons innermost nature (personality one could say) not outward shape, posture or building blocks.
frajo
4.1 / 5 (14) Oct 11, 2010
Even the ability to be an atheist is as designed.
This is a preacher's statement and not a scientific statement.
For a scientist takes into account whether his statement is falsifiable (in which case he stresses the opinion character of his statement) or not while a preacher doesn't care.
A preacher is not able and not willing to see the progress of cognition based on falsifiable theories.
Fortunately, the majority of believers is able and willing to acknowledge scientific thinking as progress. Thus, the minorities of Bible fundamentalists can be tolerated as long as they don't inflict damage to society.

VerGreeneyes
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2010
OK, first I try to prove that you exist, and only than I'm allowed to try prove that you wrote your post, no?

Again, must I first prove that you exist before we can talk, or would it suffice to recognize your posts as evidence for your existence (and that you care about posting to us) and only then we go about talking?

Actually, he could be a Turing machine for all you know. Or an extra terrestrial, evolved completely separate from us. You don't assume that's the case, right? Well, that's the null hypothesis. To prove the existence of a specific creator, you must first reject the null hypothesis, which is to say you must reject the possibility that everything we see evolved naturally. That means you have to prove that a situation you see cannot be the result of evolution. Why is evolution the null hypothesis? Because evolution is a mechanism that emerges naturally from mathematical probability.
mg1
1.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
maybe not the "for" loop but possibly more a "while" loop.

I see no need for "for loops" as youve highlighted them in evolution, and i scarely doubt its encoded except as an inherent property.

I tend to look at the biological form as a fractal, which consequentially allows me to see children grow into adults because from the smallest to the largest very much of the form is the same.

Id say we have an inherent fractal expansion "loop"/process, with additional coding that gets "executed" at specific times through the expansion process.

Also noting another reference to Turing, I myself proved/said he was as an idiot for his test long ago, but now "eminent" people have decided along the same lines that he developed a test that measured deceit and not intelligence. They have since been looking at a new test regime called the lovelace test i believe. So whenever you say some one is a Turing machine i can only think you mean they act in a deceitful manner.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
Frajo >> "Thus, the minorities of Bible fundamentalists can be tolerated as long as they don't inflict damage to society."

Quite the opposite. Due to the fanatic attitude that there's no function in "junk-DNA" for example, research has been hindered and delayed for so long. The DNA is in effect the most complex and intelligent designed information system in the universe, but it's most beautiful takes on information processing problems can't be seen by the blind eyes that don't expect to see whats in there.

Fanatic evolutionists are inflicting demage to society, and has been a threat to humanity ever since it's philosophy was applied to human social contexts. Millions and millions murdered by people who thought they act in the holy evolutions's spirit.

// Rolf Lampa
tigger
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
@RIL... no, I didn't mean intelligent design.

I suspect your ego is uncomfortable with the idea that there are others who understand how the world works in more detail than you do.

Your belief in an intelligent designer that is outside the physical system in which you exist is your escape. There's no way any honest scientist can say with 100% certainty that a sentient entity didn't create this reality... and you know that well... and you use that to protect your ego.

I wonder if you carry your logic in an intelligent designer of the universe (which is 'possible' in the world of science) to a specific religion here on Earth, which holds human beings as a central topic. See... that's where it all falls apart... there's no correlation, yet your ego is able to fill the gap.
tigger
4.2 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2010
..cont...

Unfortunately not many scientists discuss that topic... many times because they don't want to offend religious people... they are more comfortable saying that not knowing what started the big bang means that a creator could exist and therefore they should leave religious people alone. Frankly I think that's cruel and dishonest of them... because they know damn well there's no correlation all the way back to a god with human beings at the centre of the story.
RIL
1 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2010
VeryGreenEyes: >> "you must reject the possibility that everything we see evolved naturally. ... prove... not the result of evolution."

No I don't have to. Or you prove that God couldn't have created.

And YOU should prove that something natural exist, namely the natural process which allegedly is going on all the time, like large scale evolution. Should be easy?

But uou cannot prove that large scale evolution does exist, or occur in nature, not even that it would work in theory. This is because (read carefully now when I spell it for you):

There no such thing as a working specified (E)volutionary principle/ process/ concept that is capable of developing biological information in a (S)imple organism into a more (C)omplex organism.

Like so: S--(E)-->C

(to be read as "by means of E")

And since no such working principle is specified and confirmed (that is, working) any particular E-process can't be identified in nature (which one, it's not specified). Thus evolution can be proved
RIL
1 / 5 (13) Oct 11, 2010
... and the reason why the E process isn't specified is because there's none capable of specifying a working such which can be verified to function and give expected results).

And the reason why none can think of such a principle is the same as for square circles - you can't even "think" of a square cirlce.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2010
tigger >> "I suspect your ego is uncomfortable with the idea that there are others who understand how the world works in more detail than you do."

You didn't entangle yourself into any actual example as to avoid putting to test your actual understanding of the evolutionary principle?

>> "There's no way any honest scientist can say with 100% certainty that a sentient entity didn't create this reality..."

Yes, go ahead tell us that any spooky origins is reality, without beinig able to prove it. Like so many fanatic avolutionist belivers do.

>> "I wonder if you carry your logic in an intelligent designer of the universe (which is 'possible' in the world of science) to a specific religion here on Earth,"

I'm a quite experienced software system designer with experience of ONLY successfully designed complex systems.

>> "your ego is able to fill the gap"

Man's ego can't accept God, and so there's a gap, which he conveniently fills with himself. :(

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
VerGreeneyes: >> "Because evolution is a mechanism that emerges naturally from mathematical probability."

Not at all, not at all.

Logic and Numbers doesn't exist. And so math doesn't exist. Can you prove me being wrong?

If you do you have only proved that matter is not all that exist and your naturalist philosophy breaks down. And if you don't prove your case, why then are you bragging about the wonders of the unproven?

You cannot refer to the unknown and unproven to support another unknown / unproven case. That's not scientific of you.

Now from your non-material abstract probability to a "natural" process which emerges into the material world? You can't even specify a test in which (E)evolutionary principle can develop a (S)imple biological component into a more (C)omplex one, like so:

S--(E)-->C.

Painful.
Yellowdart
2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
Complexity builds from non-complexity ALL THE TIME in the real world.


I believe the point is, it does not. From DNA to physics, the amount of complexity is actually immense and only growing greater the more we learn. In other words, there is not a "non-complexity" from which something grew complex from.

As a scientist, I'm not sure why you attempt to turn the table to religion, when your lack of religious history is as poor as you would claim the differing opinions to be on their science.

You should at least remain in your realm of expertise, as religious politics is no less an excuse than scientific politics which are played out just as readily by men with agendas in science as they are in religion.

gwargh
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
@Yellowdart:
No, it does. ALL the time. For a purely abstract mathematical example look at the Central Limit Theorem, or any difference equation that shows bifurcation. For a more complex example, look at Kauffman's N-K model (which is severely outdated, but serves as a great model nonetheless).

The fact of the matter is that given very simple rules, very complex behavior can (and often does) result.
gwargh
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010

If you do you have only proved that matter is not all that exist and your naturalist philosophy breaks down. And if you don't prove your case, why then are you bragging about the wonders of the unproven?

You cannot refer to the unknown and unproven to support another unknown / unproven case. That's not scientific of you.

So, you claim that logic doesn't exist, and therefore your theory is superior? I'm not sure how you can even argue when you yourself claim there's no such thing as logic or numbers. If these things don't exist, there's absolutely no way you can prove you are correct.
Yellowdart
1.5 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
they are more comfortable saying that not knowing what started the big bang means that a creator could exist and therefore they should leave religious people alone.


Well, the big bang was a response to Hoyle's steady state ideals, which no one liked either at the time, due to the want of a beginning and end. In essence, the notion of god played an influence.

because they know damn well there's no correlation all the way back to a god with human beings at the centre of the story.


Well the problem would be the authenticity of Christ being God Incarnate. That which was outside the system, became apart of the system.

See... that's where it all falls apart... there's no correlation, yet your ego is able to fill the gap.


Evolution has become such an ambiguous term, that neither expresses the actual mechanisms associated with variation and speciation, that it has become a gap filler itself. It's ego has made it as unfalsifable as god himself.
gwargh
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
Now from your non-material abstract probability to a "natural" process which emerges into the material world? You can't even specify a test in which (E)evolutionary principle can develop a (S)imple biological component into a more (C)omplex one, like so:

S--(E)-->C.

Painful.


Here you go:
N[t+1] = a*N[t]*(1-N[t]) for values of a above 3.7 leads to very complicated behavior. All this is a simple population model with only one variable. Clearly, according to you, no complexity should occur.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
gwargh - "@Yellowdart: No, [complexity] does. ALL the time."

Throw in a hand granade in your sleeping room while you sleep in it, and your "complexity" will increase.

This is were dishonesty thrives, fanatic evolution believers obscuring concepts and terms.

There's is absolute no increase in complexity in chrystals forming better order, due to material's inherent tendency to form according to the most basic physical laws.

But go ye into a bombed and destroyed city and rebuild it's structure and culture, and defined the word complexity, and then we talk more.

Words devoid of semantics is no more useful than barking at dogs.

// Rolf Lampa
nada
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
nada >> A flower has 50 times longer genome that humans... God's image (we have god's genome), how can God create something MORE complex that himself?"

RIL Says:
Wrong. God used LESS complex code for flowers. Semantically more complex code is more compact, like using loops and such.

Besides, the ancient hebrew for "image" was an idiom depicting a persons innermost nature (personality one could say) not outward shape, posture or building blocks.


Wow, you're not only arrogant enough to claim you know god how created the universe, you're arrogant to say you know how he coded DNA!

But what does it matter to you? As in your last statement, you obviously don't believe that the genome controls how we look.

Guess God created poodles and pugs too huh? I wonder why dog breeders don't take pictures of God's miracle "poofs" when He creates a new dog breed with the snap of His fingers and out of dust?
Yellowdart
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
With respect gwargh, bifurcation is hardly non complex. The mathematics associated would leave most college students dazed and confused. Considering that is only parameters you are changing to effect a system change, it is hardly reflective of any growth in complexity.

Citing another complex example to prove non complexity is self defeating.
gwargh
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
How am I obscuring the term? I'm stating that complex behavior can evolve from simple starting rules and conditions.
You're telling me that since there's physical laws that govern these processes, there is no increase in complexity? That doesn't even begin to make sense, but supposing it does, all you're saying is that if there are basic physical laws for evolution, it is not complex either. This neither proves nor disproves evolution. You seem to be the one engaging in semantics here.
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
gwargh - "... Here you go: N[t+1] = a*N[t]*(1-N[t])... Clearly, according to you, no complexity should occur."

S---(E)-->C were meant to be an empirical test of biology being subject to natural processes, not math which doesn't even address the actual biological problems involved. The math trap rigged for biologists in the 50-ies isn't impressing anyone anymore. Today the problem revolves around the semantics involved, especially in the field of embryology where genetic information is RE-USE in different stages of growth, etc (now imagine the effects of chance mutations).

In reality a working (E)volutionary principle isn't even defined, and thus not specified, and thus not identifieable in the real world (nor in abstract theory).

What you can't specify you can't identify and thus it's existence can't be proven.

Large scale evolution exists only as a shady imagination in the dull eyes of the believer, yet another victim of the religious nature of natural philosophy.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2010
With respect gwargh, bifurcation is hardly non complex. The mathematics associated would leave most college students dazed and confused. Considering that is only parameters you are changing to effect a system change, it is hardly reflective of any growth in complexity.

Citing another complex example to prove non complexity is self defeating.

But the rules are not complex. The system becomes complex since it follows simple rules. Many bifurcation models have only 1 to 2 parameters and don't follow any complex mathematics at each time step. It's the resulting SYSTEM that is complex. You wanted an example of simple -> complex systems, and I gave you one (and that was not the only one, by the way)
RIL
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
gwargh >> "So, you claim that logic doesn't exist..."

No. I claim that the non-matter nature of logic and numbers has ontology. They exist. Which proves that a pure naturlist worldview is false (that only the material / physical world does exist).

gwargh >> "If these things don't exist, there's absolutely no way you can prove you are correct."

You're approaching an aspect of my point.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
S---(E)-->C were meant to be an empirical test of biology being subject to natural processes, not math which doesn't even address the actual biological problems involved

This is an empirical test of biology being subject to natural processes. Flour beetles have been used as model populations to show how changing parameters in their reproductive capabilities can lead to the behavior seen in this model. In short: these models reflect reality.
gwargh
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
Today the problem revolves around the semantics involved, especially in the field of embryology where genetic information is RE-USE in different stages of growth, etc (now imagine the effects of chance mutations).

Chance mutations still have a probability distribution of being fixed or not. See any study on distribution of mutations within the genome. Active genes are less likely to get fixed mutation than junk DNA, and more highly expressed genes are less likely to get a mutation fixed than less active ones, precisely because of natural selection. Since most mutations tend to be negative, they are more likely to occur in areas that are not expressed and therefore not selected against.
In reality a working (E)volutionary principle isn't even defined, and thus not specified, and thus not identifieable in the real world (nor in abstract theory).
Again, YOU are the one engaging in semantics.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
qwargh: >> "Flour beetles have been used as model populations to show how changing parameters... In short: these models reflect reality."

No.

In real biology you don't have "parameters" unless they already exist. We're talking about how the very biology which IS working right now, can come into existence.

I can induce cancer by damaging or reducing information in the aptosis mechanism, and get as a result cancer in your cells, a bit like the disorder which would occur if popping off a bomb

Some call such for "increase of complexity" while others (like me) call it chaos.

Not any (undefined kind of) change produces large scale evolution. What we all agree on is reversible adaptation driven by variation and natural selection.

You can't build up a house by "changing" it by tearing it down.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
In real biology you don't have "parameters" unless they alread exist. I can induce cancer by damaging or reducing information in the aptosis mechanism, and get as a result cancer in your cells, a bit like the disorder which would occur if popping off a bomb

No, you do have parameters. You have environmental variables, which, in a controlled lab environment, become parameters. As someone who claims to be a software developer, you shouldn't start making claims about biology.

And chaos, by definition, is complex.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2010
I didnt argue that the rules were complex or not apart of complex systems.

The fact that a complex system must have rules, is why it is complex.

One rule does not a system make. There is no such thing as non complexity. You can not go from one simple rule to a complex system. Without the system to begin with, the rule would not affect other rules or parameters...

gwargh
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
We're talking about how the very biology which IS working right now, can come into existence.

For that there are myriads of hypotheses. This article, and the debate, however, began on an argument of certain rules within the system (that is, "for" loops, although I doubt they are actually for loops, since the article mentions no way of controlling the expression of ncRNA in the first place).
My claim is that these rules can evolve from a simpler system, through random mutations. Your claim seems to be that such things can't happen. As an example, I've quoted well studied examples of complex behavior resulting from simple rules and initial conditions. Your response seems to be that it's impossible to create something randomly. cont.
gwargh
4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
If you really are a software developer, go ahead and write a script (shouldn't take long) that creates a random sequence 1000 nucleotides long that follows chemical and physical laws (long repeats of only pyramidines or purines tend to be unstable, for example). Then Blast that sequence and see how well it matches to some genes. Mind you, an RNA sequence 1 kb long can self assemble in solution, and this would only be the initial gene which has had quite a lot of time to have further, simple, rules imposed on it.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
qwargh: >> "And chaos, by definition, is complex."

But chaos is not what biology is about. That's the typical dishonesty, ignorance and lack of discernment which evolution believers are suffering from.

Large scale evolution is a silly play with words and philosophical concepts, not a natrual principle / process indetifiable in nature.

And instead of chaos working biology is very ordered, and semantically it's still way beyond human understanding, and very stable information storage and processing systems.

The dirty trick I was addressing was about the fact that you don't have any need of "environmental variables" (in the lab environment becoming parameters) before you have already functioning biology at hand.

You can't refer to the exellent design and powerful capability of already and fully functioning biology as a the source of how it originated, how it came to existence, how it was all put together.

I'm not working as a software designer. But I use to.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
qwargh. >> "As someone who claims to be a software developer, you shouldn't start making claims about biology."

I make claims about concepts which you clearly don't understand. Your only chance to prove otherwise is to stop babble about being a biologist or not, and instead demonstrate that you first understand the terms / concepts used.

You cannot build a house by applying the KIND OF change called tearing it down. Here I'm addressing the semantics of the term "change".

I claim that it is dishonest to lie to people that change, even tearing things down, can be used as proof for evolution (allegedly) building something up.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
You can not go from one simple rule to a complex system. Without the system to begin with, the rule would not affect other rules or parameters...

I just did. ONE parameter + ONE simple rule = COMPLEX system in this case. I don't see what you're arguing. The only system it is dependent on is logic (math), and if your claim is that logic is set in place by an intelligent designer, then you have a non-falsifiable, non-scientific theory that you cannot prove or disprove. In short, it is absolutely irrelevant to discussing whether evolutionary processes can descend from basic physical laws, because yes, they can. I'm not going to descend into ontology here.
gwargh
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
You can't refer to the exellent design and powerful capability of already and fully functioning biology as a the source of how it originated, how it came to existence, how it was all put together.

I'm not. I'm arguing that very simple rules can lead to the origin of systems as complex as functional biology. Again, the population model is simply an abstract mathematical proof that shows complex behavior evolving from simple rules (yet, these rules have been verified to exist in nature as well). It relies on nothing more than logic and math, and does not require predetermined biological rules. No, it does not explain how life originated, but it shows that there is definitely credibility to the claim that simple rules can make a complex system, a claim that you argue is incorrect.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
gwargh >> "If you really are a software developer, go ahead and write a script (shouldn't take long) that..."

Nothing done so far in human history has come close to mimicing REAL BIOLOGY in terms of giving anything near like real conditions for biologic information to form.

You can't mimic a self replicating molecule before it already can self replicate, for example.

Richard Dawkins suggests that they came down from outer space. he saw a problem there, whil not seeing the other problem, that of endless self regression, pushing the origins only one step away without even attempting to solve it.

The bragging biologists do the specification of their dreamed principle, which then can be turned into something scriptlike (you won't come this far BTW) which has anything to do with the conditions of real biology.

Reality is evolution's biggest and cruellest enemy. Biosophy just don't work in reality.

// Rolf Lampa
Yellowdart
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
"I just did. ONE parameter + ONE simple rule = COMPLEX system in this case"

You added a parameter to the rule. The parameter had to exist beforehand unless you are claiming to be the Creator? One simple rule does not equal complex system. Therefore what I argued is that non complexity does not exist.

The only system it is dependent on is logic (math), and if your claim is that logic is set in place by an intelligent designer, then you have a non-falsifiable, non-scientific theory that you cannot prove or disprove.


Then what has set it in place? What has established the rules, man? you? it just is? always has been? I find that no better than religion.

It is not chaos, chaos is merely a measure of our lack of knowledge against the rules that we know. As we learn more and more about such systems like DNA and RNA, there are more and more rules, not chaos. In essence what we will come to find is that there are no random mutations. Mutations are the result of rules
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
gwargh >> "I'm arguing that very simple rules can lead to the origin of systems as complex as functional biology."

You'ld be subject to the Nobel price if you could prove your claim. In reality the philosophies about large scale evolution of biology sinply doesn't work. You have to lie and claim that OTHER principles (like well known small scale adaptation, that is, designed variation + selection) DID evolve existing fully functioning biology, and call that large scale evolution. Liars claim such. Trickery.

The tricks involved are based on obscuring the meaning of words, terms, concepts. Like tearing down houses to build them up.

And people not being experts bow their heads and knees. Sigh.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
You added a parameter to the rule. The parameter had to exist beforehand unless you are claiming to be the Creator? One simple rule does not equal complex system. Therefore what I argued is that non complexity does not exist.

Keep that parameter a constant if you want. The system will still show great dynamics.

Then what has set it in place? What has established the rules, man? you? it just is? always has been? I find that no better than religion.

As I said, this is meaningless to this particular discussion. It simple dodges the issue. Simple physical rules can explain evolution. (PERIOD) It does not matter who set them in motion, or even if they are completely random. That is an ontological debate, and not a debate over evolution.

There are not more and more rules, there are more and more different behaviors. These behaviors result from simple physical laws. And again, who put these laws in place is not relevant.
gwargh
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
In reality the philosophies about large scale evolution of biology sinply doesn't work.

YES IT DOES. Selection can act on a simple strand of RNA that is not even translated, simply because some chains are more chemically stable than others. Over time, random chance can create a chain that actually codes for a protein, from which point you move to the level of selecting for the protein as well as the strand. From there it's a slow but steady climb to selecting for protein clusters, cells, populations, multi-cellular organisms and so on.
Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
In short, it is absolutely irrelevant to discussing whether evolutionary processes can descend from basic physical laws


If it can descend, it is also bound by basic physical laws as well.

RIL
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
gwargh >> "(in reply to "philosophies about large scale evolution of biology sinply doesn't work." :
"YES IT DOES. Selection can act on a simple strand of RNA that is not even translated, simply because..."

Real biologists know that selection (living in a natural environment) can't on a phenotype select for an individual genotype.

For example the overall reality, like the signal to noice ratio, makes it impossible. But you seem to have very strong beliefs.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
If it can descend, it is also bound by basic physical laws as well.

Perhaps I phrased that somewhat incorrectly. In the discussion of evolution, arguments towards a creator who set initial physical parameters are irrelevant. They have no place there. They change NOTHING, are NOT testable and only serve to attempt to prove the existence of a creator, when in fact, these same patterns in evolution can occur without a creator.
JRDarby
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
You have to lie and claim that OTHER principles (like well known small scale adaptation, that is, designed variation + selection) DID evolve existing fully functioning biology, and call that large scale evolution. Liars claim such. Trickery.


... Small scale adaption? You mean biological evolution? By changing the terms you make the argument seem more convoluted than it is: indeed, most Creationists for some reason tend to split evolution into "macro" and "micro" categories with no real justification. The same process is at work in both cases.
gwargh
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
:
Real biologists know that selection (living in a natural environment) can't on a phenotype select for an individual genotype.

For example the overall reality, like the signal to noice ratio, makes it impossible. But you seem to have very strong beliefs.

// Rolf Lampa

Complete BS. Selection is the differential reproduction of an organism. In case we define an RNA strand as a very primitive organism, its replication would be dependent on its chemical make-up (which, in this case, is also its phenotype). Any biologist worth his introductory undergrad course knows that some mutations are more likely than others due to chemical stability.

Also, try clearing up your grammar. For someone who "used to be" a software developer, you seem to be unaware of the importance of proper grammar to being understood.
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
Keep that parameter a constant if you want. The system will still show great dynamics.


Your only proving my original point.

As I said, this is meaningless to this particular discussion.


Well i believe you did interject to a comment of mine in regards to an ontological discussion that was.

Simple physical rules can explain evolution.


I agree. But to what extent does it occur based upon the laws, for instance, is the question between anti and pro evos. No one argues variation/sepciation/adaptation. No one has proof, or an understanding of the mechanism enough to prove other wise.

There are not more and more rules, there are more and more different behaviors. These behaviors result from simple physical laws.


Sounds circular. My point is that our knowledge of the rules grow, not the actual amount. The actual number is static whether we know of a specific rule or not. Behavior is the action of the rule. It does not create new rules.
RIL
1.4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
Real biologists know that selection (living in a natural environment) can't on a phenotype select for an individual genotype. ... signal to noice ratio makes it impossible.

Complete BS.


So you are not living in the reality in which the rest of us live.

BTW, English is not my native language. For shorter periods of time I also have a problem with dysphasia.

Tearing down my verbal system really isn't going to build it up, no matter how many billions of years you put on it.

Instead our exchange of information is impaired from this defect. That's very real. But in evolutionary philosophy it's improved, especially if the "environment", you in this case, is fond of reading badly spelled text and the use "not so perfect language."

Silly this. Especially the large scale evolution fluff.

// Rolf Lampa
frajo
4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
So, you claim that logic doesn't exist...


No. I claim that the non-matter nature of logic and numbers has ontology. They exist. Which proves that a pure naturlist worldview is false (that only the material / physical world does exist).

Interesting, but not acceptable.
You don't even define "logic". Is your logic embracing the "tertium non datur" axiom? Or which flavor of logic do you assume to exist independently of matter and energy?
How do you define "numbers"? What kind of numbers do you assume to exist independently of matter and energy? Natural, integer, rational, real, complex, transcendent? Is aleph-0 in your primordial set of numbers?
gwargh
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
So you are not living in the reality in which the rest of us live.

Did you read my reply, or just decide that it was wrong? At the molecular level, phenotype IS the genotype.

BTW, English is not my native language. For shorter periods of time I also have a problem with dysphasia.


Neither is it mine. Yet I don't make any excuses about being unclear, I clarify.

Instead our exchange of information is impaired from this defect. That's very real. But in evolutionary philosophy it's improved, especially if the "environment", you in this case, is fond of reading badly spelled text and the use "not so perfect language."

Silly this. Especially the large scale evolution fluff.

See, you blame others of intellectual dishonesty, and then play around with words to disprove "evolution fluff".
gwargh
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
@Yellowdart:

Think of it this way: you are claiming in a debate on evolution that its existence is evidence for a designer. I claim that based on the rules of logic, you don't need a creator to create the complexity of evolution. Now you seem to believe that the mere existence of logic is proof of a creator, but it is not, in any way. The same set of logic could be derived at random. If there's a rock on the ground, you cannot say that it is a rule for the rock to be on the ground. It is merely one of the possible states of the rock.

cont.
Yellowdart
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
Over time, random chance can create a chain that actually codes for a protein


Is it random chance? Or is it actually just another basic rule that we have poorly understood so far? "random chance" is just a filler, it offers no description or mechanism, and can be easily exchanged via white out with the three letter word "god".
gwargh
4 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
It's the same with universal constants. I recall a study analyzing variation in the universal constants that we know, and whether or not organic compounds (and hence, life) would be possible with those variations. The study found that there is a range of values for different kinds of universal constants that all lead to some form of organic compounds, even when they are much more different than ours. Unfortunately I can't find the study at the moment, but I'll try to locate it for you.
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 11, 2010
qwargh: Did you read my reply, or just decide that it was wrong? At the molecular level, phenotype IS the genotype.


I already said this, but you make it even worse: Natural selection doesn't operate on, or "reach" the molecular level. Fact.

This is the natural reality which the rest of us live in.

It is at this level of reality which the signal to noice ratio kills off your imagined molecular evolution.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
RIL: BTW, English is not my native language. For shorter periods of time I also have a problem with dysphasia.
gwargh: Neither is it mine. Yet I don't make any excuses about being unclear, I clarify.


You don't know what you're talking about claiming that natural selection operate (select) on the molecular level.

You are obscuring facts, not clarifying. You overestimate your self. Smoked.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2010
I already said this, but you make it even worse: Natural selection doesn't operate on, or "reach" the molecular level. Fact.
This is the natural reality which the rest of us live in.
It is at this level of reality which the signal to noice ratio kills off your imagined molecular evolution.

Once again, BS. Natural Selection, by definition, is the differential reproduction of an organism. As a precursor to an organism, RNA would be subject to differential reproduction based on the chemical makeup of the strand, hence, natural selection of more stable strands. That is the reality of our physical world. In terms of organisms beyond RNA, the term natural selection becomes more important to the expressed characteristics, since the reproductive capability is then more limited by the ability of the organism to reproduce, not by the specific genetic makeup (since by this point we assume it is stable).
gwargh
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
Is it random chance? Or is it actually just another basic rule that we have poorly understood so far? "random chance" is just a filler, it offers no description or mechanism, and can be easily exchanged via white out with the three letter word "god".

Once again, it does not matter. And since it can be either, it is also NOT proof for the existence of God.
gwargh
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010

You don't know what you're talking about claiming that natural selection operate (select) on the molecular level.

You are obscuring facts, not clarifying. You overestimate your self. Smoked.

I have given you an explanation of how selection can act on the molecular level. Here's another example if the RNA chemical makeup won't do: RNA that would bind to RNA polymerase would have a reproductive advantage (differential reproduction = selection). RNA that would also be able to create its own polymerase would gain a further advantage and so on. There is nothing mystical about this. If you are too blind to see this, it is your own problem, not mine.
Yellowdart
3.8 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2010
In the discussion of evolution, arguments towards a creator who set initial physical parameters are irrelevant. They have no place there. They change NOTHING, are NOT testable and only serve to attempt to prove the existence of a creator, when in fact, these same patterns in evolution can occur without a creator.


I can agree with you here, whether the world is 4.2 billion or 6k years, whether there was a flood or not, does not change whether God exists or not, nor does it change what rules and laws exist. It will always be a faith issue.
gwargh
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
I can agree with you here, whether the world is 4.2 billion or 6k years, whether there was a flood or not, does not change whether God exists or not, nor does it change what rules and laws exist. It will always be a faith issue.

And that is my point. Discussing god here is simply unnecessary. This has nothing to prove or disprove about god.
Yellowdart
3 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
Think of it this way: you are claiming in a debate on evolution that its existence is evidence for a designer.


Where did I make that claim? I have argued that there are only complex systems. I have argued that by the same token in which "god" is used as a filler, so is "random chance". Neither are scientific descriptions.

I claim that based on the rules of logic, you don't need a creator to create the complexity of evolution.


If I claim that based ont he rules of logic, you dont need pancakes for breakfast, does it say two bits and tiddles about evolution either? As to how a mechanism works, it is irreleative to whether or not god established it or it just exists because you said so.

RIL
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
frajo: "tertium non datur.... Or which flavor of logic do you assume to exist independently of matter and energy?"

Yes why not go for the most commonly known logic, which is called logic. Does it exist?

How do you define "numbers"?

Ordinals will do.
gwargh
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
Where did I make that claim? I have argued that there are only complex systems. I have argued that by the same token in which "god" is used as a filler, so is "random chance". Neither are scientific descriptions.

Fair enough, I must have misunderstood your argument. I would agree partially, however, claiming something is random is simply claiming its incalculable. That does not make it unscientific, it simply makes it an admittance of ignorance.

As to how a mechanism works, it is irreleative to whether or not god established it or it just exists because you said so.

But it is relevant whether it exists merely because I said so. The purpose of science is to describe and explain, so if I say something that does not, actually, happen, that is anything but irrelevant. And if the god I claim has created these rules is inconsistent with them, that too, is a problem.
RIL
1 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
The purpose of science is to describe and explain, so if I say something that does not, actually, happen, that is anything but irrelevant.

You cannot describe how a self replicating molecule came about, and neither can you explain it with any empirical support whatsoever.

You can only claim that existing well functioning biology do exist, but you don't have any empirical support for philosophy that large scale evolution ocurs or has ever occured. It's only bad naturalistic philosophy.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
Once again, RIL, RNA is thought to be a possible precursor to life. It self assembles into a variety of different forms (rRNA and tRNA), and when interacting with proteins (which can also self assemble) it can self replicate. You choose to ignore this.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 11, 2010
You don't know what you're talking about claiming that natural selection operate (select) on the molecular level.
I have given you an explanation of how selection can act on the molecular level. Here's another...

I understand the philosophy you try to explain, I understand it very well, but,

in the field of genetics it's a well the known fact that selection don't operate on the molecular level.

Paus.

The molecular level isn't "visible" to natural selection due to signal to noice ratio. And more theorethically, you don't even know the relation between the genotype (on the molecular level) and the phenotype exposed to natural selection.

You miss the point entirely - the molecular level isn't "exposed" to natural selection.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (6) Oct 11, 2010
Once again, RIL, RNA is thought to be a possible precursor to life.

You can think about most everything. Thinking is easy. Thinking correctly is harder. Even talking philosophy is OK, but philosophy isn't empirical science.

// Rolf Lampa
gwargh
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2010
I understand the philosophy you try to explain, I understand it very well, but, in the field of genetics it's a well the known fact that selection don't operate on the molecular level.

First off, not philosophy but science.
Second of all: In organisms. Pause. That has nothing to do with a pre-organismal world (which you argue can't follow the same rules). The same rules do apply, just on a different scale.

The molecular level isn't "visible" to natural selection due to signal to noice ratio. And more theorethically, you don't even know the relation between the genotype (on the molecular level) and the phenotype exposed to natural selection.

At a macro level. On the micro level, each strand of DNA is selected for by the laws of chemistry and physics.
cont.
gwargh
4.1 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2010
You miss the point entirely - the molecular level isn't "exposed" to natural selection.

It isn't exposed to sexual selection or predatory selection, sure. It is exposed to selection based on its viability to reproduce. Transposons are selected for on a molecular level, since they are able to replicate well, and often. On an organismal level, they are generally neutral.
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2010
You miss the point entirely - the molecular level isn't "exposed" to natural selection.

It isn't exposed to ...

... natural selection. Drop it. You cannot say for any individual, nor for any population,
starting from the genotyp on the molecular level, that this is, or is not, going to have, or has had, any significance in the out come of actual selection.

You consistently conflate replication benefits on lower level than in the level an ACTUAL (real) organism ACTUALLY replicate, and in so doing you remain in an imaginary world.

In real biology molecular changes are not "visible" to natural selection.

You keep talking only to cover up your ignorance of this reality in real biology, which proves why so many other philosophical constructs and fairy tales within the evolutionary interpretation framework are not even subject to natural selection.

Sigh.

// Rolf Lampa
Yellowdart
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 11, 2010
And if the god I claim has created these rules is inconsistent with them, that too, is a problem.


A god would not be inconsistant with his established rules. His creation's understanding of his establishment may very well be inconsistant.

Where god in general can not be proven or disproven...specific gods are subject based on well, their writings.

For the christian God, he tells adam and eve to multiply (thus creating variation at least amongst their species), but our knowledge is limited. Which is why most anti evo's stop far short of atoms to men, and pro evo's carry right on without proof of extention. Science has yet to prove otherwise. It has not defined the mechanism and poorly understands the extent at which it occurs.

I imagine the actual mechanism is somewhere in the middle. Why? Because evolution would be a magnificient mechanism for repopulation post global flood :)

tigger
3.2 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
What would really help enormously in the ongoing debate of "a creator of the universe" and specific religions is if they were untangled in the discussion... it seems to happen sporadically and then the discussion merges into a tangled mess.

Bring it back to the driving dynamics.

There is a possibility of a sentient creator of this universe... I and most atheists worth their salt in the discussion of the details will volunteer that. "There probably is no god, so enjoy your life and get on with it"... the word "probably" is key.

That is not a weak stance or an admission of any personal god... it's an honest and rational stance.

It is not an admission that any of the many hundreds of religions have any basis in reality.
tigger
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2010
...cont...

Scientists who understand the meaning of the word "probably" in the sentence "There probably is no god, so enjoy your life and get on with it" are being disingenuous when they excuse those that follow a personal religion... that is a huge part of the problem, not many scientists have the balls to challenge their parents and friends in life. It's a pussy move that happens all the time.

Hard for honest and brave scientists to stand on a leg when a lot of their colleagues are too much of a pussy to speak their mind.
tigger
2 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2010
...cont...

A clear disconnect needs to be made in the discussion between the honest admission that there is a non zero probability that a sentient being created this universe and the existence of any religion practised by mankind.

When it's common practise for a scientist to be accountable and pointed out for being disingenuous when it comes to the irrational correlation between a "cosmic god" and a mankind religion then things will move on swiftly and perhaps we can leave the fairy tales behind and stop wasting all this time and energy.
DamienS
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 11, 2010
There is a possibility of a sentient creator of this universe... I and most atheists worth their salt in the discussion of the details will volunteer that.

I think a more scientific stance would be a statement to the effect that there is no *evidence* for a god.
tigger
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2010
Yes, no evidence, only probabilities when coming at this one.

I suppose in that sense a person of faith in a religion as practised on Earth is a essentially a gambler who goes for really really really long odds.

Person of Faith: "Yep, I am incredibly lucky and special"
gwargh
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2010
... natural selection. Drop it. You cannot say for any individual, nor for any population,
starting from the genotyp on the molecular level, that this is, or is not, going to have, or has had, any significance in the out come of actual selection.

I will say it one last time: On a molecular level, the precursors to organisms would be selected for chemical stability. It is generally believed that this would be RNA.

You have proven time and again to not listen and insist on being correct despite not having considered the evidence before you.

You have shown misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection. Most of all, you have shown that you are incapable of understanding (fairly) simple concepts.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I've given you the evidence, which you have refused to refute and merely deny.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (13) Oct 12, 2010
I stand amazed at the gullibility of pro-evolutionists:
In the human body they are confronted with complexity at every level - the cell, the tissue, the organ and then the systematic complexity from head to foot. Yet, they are of the opinion that all this simply got together by accident.
If that was the case then surely we should be seeing this kind of development everyday? We should be seeing dust and other particles randomly gathering together to form more complex things. We should be witnessing this all the time, randomly without any intervention by human beings or any other intelligent input.
But the fact of the matter is that we don't. In fact we witness and record and document and testify ourselves in our own personal lives that exactly the opposite happens. Where did you leave your logic/commonsense behind?
How often have you walked along and some fab object suddenly appeared out of nowhere? It just doesn't happen. But you want us to believe it happened in the cell?
tigger
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2010
Kevinrts, we do see dust and other particles gathering together to form complex structures... I suspect though you're wanting to see them form into life before your very eyes. Good luck with that. The evolution of life resulting in you took billions of years. "We" don't want "You" to believe in anything... make your own mind up based on the evidence before you.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 12, 2010
I stand amazed at the gullibility of pro-evolutionists: Yet, they are of the opinion that all this simply got together by accident.
No we don't. Your misunderstanding is reinforced by your inability to pay attention when people are telling you things that you may not like. It requires far greater gullibility to allow someone to tell you that there is a magic sky being that crafted all of this complexity in a mere 4 days after creating the incredibly more complex Universe in 2 days.
If that was the case then surely we should be seeing this kind of development everyday?
We do. If you look for it, you will see it as well.
In fact we witness and record and document and testify ourselves in our own personal lives that exactly the opposite happens.
So you've never seen a tree bear fruit, or a plant bear seed? Perhaps you've met a pregnant woman?
How often have you walked along and some fab object suddenly appeared out of nowhere?
Fantastically ignorant you are.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2010
... natural selection. Drop it. You cannot say for any individual, nor for any population,
starting from the genotyp on the molecular level, that this is, or is not, going to have, or has had, any significance in the out come of actual selection.
So in a room full of women who will have children with you, do you pay the most attention to the most attractive woman, or do you just randomly pick one out of a hat and have kids with them? That is a form of natural selection.
JRDarby
2 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
When it's common practise for a scientist to be accountable and pointed out for being disingenuous when it comes to the irrational correlation between a "cosmic god" and a mankind religion then things will move on swiftly and perhaps we can leave the fairy tales behind and stop wasting all this time and energy.


I think you neglect the fact that, for better for for worse, fairy tales are ingrained in the human psyche. Why? Who knows. But I think we'll sooner be rid of science than superstition. Just a little side note.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2010
I think you neglect the fact that, for better for for worse, fairy tales are ingrained in the human psyche. Why?
Fear of the dark.

In an animal that is displaced from its habitat you will see immediate fearful and apprehensive reactions. Our ancestors, displaced from the trees, found themselves in an environment in which shadows contained superior predators. Those who were afraid of the dark survived longer. Those who were afraid of everything survived the longest. In order to rectify their irrational fear with their developing rational mind they created these fanciful myths to explain the cruel nature of survival and nature. These myths became the basis for religion and evolved with our sense of rationale. Now we're at the precipice or reason. Due to the enhanced preservation of multigenerational information and our rational ability to investigate, we've found that many myths are partially or wholly untrue. Science will survive, superstition will die out.
JRDarby
3.2 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
I respect your opinions S_H, and agree with what you've written in response to the creationists, but I do think that what you've described is a "just-so story" as much as anything they might offer. It makes sense with our current understanding of human evolution, biological and cultural, but there's no evidence behind it.

I also am pessimistic regarding many humans' ability to transcend their own animal biology: fear, aggression, sexual impetus, and hunger are very powerful forces that many people take for granted as conscious functions when really they're acting out of the same animal instincts as their pets. Maybe there will become a split as those that think with their minds and not their neurotransmitters, so to speak (because we all admit it reduces to chemicals in the end), do likewise transcend biologically-induced superstition, but then again maybe only for a select few.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
but there's no evidence behind it.
Au contraire. This is far from a hypothesis. There is a decent stack of evidence that backs this assertion up. For example the chemical processes that occur when an individual is faced with a decision, even a non-fight or flight decision immediately invoke a fear response. This is also seen in our closest relatives in the primate tree but not in other members of the mammalian clades. We've found that there are cultural parallels in all primates with a similar chemical basis. The evidence isn't complete, but it is hardly a circumstantial hypothesis.

This especially holds true when you look at the evolution of religion. The newer religions now speak of interaction with aliens as "Biblical Fact" and make statements of directed panspermia, (mormonism and scientology). The need for an ad hoc higher power exists within us because our ancestors required it to survive, we do not. It is vestigial.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (17) Oct 12, 2010
I think it is a mistake to separate our emotive, feeling selves from our rational, reasoning selves. The point of reason is to stimulate feelings in us, and to displace or subvert other feelings. But reason is not as good or overwhelming at this task as other stimuli for our feelings. It takes a lot of work and discipline to achieve and maintain reason's mastery over feeling, and superstition creeps in when we weary of bearing reason, putting down our tool and saying to ourselves that reason's task is done, at least well enough to be getting on with. Faith is putting reason down and refusing to pick it back up again when needed. Science, and a scientific mindset, recognizes that the task of reason, the mastery of all our feelings both perceptive and emotive, is never done, and while we may put down the tool from time to time out of weariness or courtesy, we should never pack it away out of sight.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
Thras, I rarely disagree as we're typically of a similar finding however I disagree with the reasoning to this
I think it is a mistake to separate our emotive, feeling selves from our rational, reasoning selves.


This isn't a seperation of logic and reason from emotion. Reason and emotion are the two halves of the human whole. Faith is corrupted reason and utilized emotion to corrupt the process, but this doesn't detract from emotion or from reason. Faith is our primal impulse, the liar based upon fear.

What would life be without love or companionship? This is an argument used against those who use reason by those who use faith, but it holds no water. One can love with reason, they simply cannot have faith with reason.
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (17) Oct 12, 2010
I don't see them as separate halves, though. We've evolved to use reason, just as we've evolved to have certain kinds of feelings, for example, towards other's of our species. In my mind, reason and logic are simply complex, social human feelings, no different in kind than other such complex feelings like romantic love and vengeance. One can certainly love with reason, and love without reason. But one cannot reason without feeling. Faith is not corrupted reason, it is not reason at all. It is the refusal to use reason, to feel it, if you will, in those instances where it ought to be felt. At it's most base, reason is how we feel about our feelings, it is the means by which we move ourselves from feeling to feeling, without our feelings being wholly caused by means outside our control. (cont)
Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (17) Oct 12, 2010
Faith is a refusal to allow ourselves to feel anything about our feelings. We are not to doubt them, the fact that we feel a certain way justifies that feeling wholly, in the eyes of faith. Reason, as a feeling, begins with doubt and mistrust of the things that we feel immediately, as it were. Faith commands us to banish such emotion, and where it uses reason at all, it turns it against itself, telling us to doubt doubt, and mistrust our suspicion. In this way, it is a corruption of reason, but it is the same kind of corruption as one who pursues romantic love because he enjoys the feeling of being in love.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 12, 2010
But one cannot reason without feeling.
Disagreed once again. Empiricism is reason without emotional feeling. Science itself is based on the practice of observation and reason without emotional feeling.
RIL
1.1 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2010
JRDarby ... large scale evolution. Liars claim such. Trickery.


... Small scale adaption? You mean biological evolution?
No, clumsy of me, I should have written "small scale *evolution* which is the same as adaptation."

Small scale evolution means natural selection operating on REVERSIBLE results of designed biological variation mechanisms, and to some extent, IRREVERSIBLE results of mutations (one way deterioration). This well known process produces even different species which can’t interbreed, that is, LOSE genetic information (or deteriorate it causing this result). Small scale evolution is not the same as large scale evolution producing novel biological concepts or organisms.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2010
Thrasymachus - Faith is a refusal...

Nonsens. You walk over the floor, and learn to trust that the floor will withstand your weight. Your reasonable faith in the floor will make you confortable walking many times over that very floor.

Without this faith you'll end upp sitting in a hospital holding on tight to the armrests looking with deep mistrust at the kind nurse trying to comfort you and help you stand up to go to the bath room...

If you don't trust the author you can't learn from the book. if you don't trust the teachers sources you can't learn. It would be unreasonable.

Without faith, or more precise, reasonable faith, you cannot not achieve knowledge.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2010
Sceptic Heretic: So you've never seen a tree bear fruit, or a plant bear seed? Perhaps you've met a pregnant woman?

You conflate growth according to plan with evolution. Typical of evolutionists total lack of understanind of basi concepts. Growth acording to plan includes embryology. It has nothing to do with classic macroevolution.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2010
Ops, too late for editing half done text. New try:
Sceptic Heretic: So you've never seen a tree bear fruit, or a plant bear seed? Perhaps you've met a pregnant woman?

You conflate growth according to plan with unpredictable evolution.

Typical for evolutionist's total lack of understanding of basic concepts.

Growth acording to plan includes embryology. It has nothing to do with classic macroevolution.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1.3 / 5 (8) Oct 12, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic - they simply cannot have faith with reason.

BS. Se above about how faith/ trust/ is reasonable.

The unstable haunted Kierkegaard came up with the idea that it is irrational to trust the trustworthy. And all irrational people after him agree with him.

And since his madness plays a vital role in the philosphy of atheists they chose to ignore that healthy mankind up to Kierkegaard hadn't come up with the idea about faith being irrational before he did. Sigh.

// Rolf Lampa
Thrasymachus
2.2 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2010
SH: You dissociate perceptive feeling from emotive feeling too quickly, and fail to recognize that dispassion is a kind of feeling. When we empirically investigate the world, we do not do so without feeling, but with our feelings, both perceptive and emotive, carefully controlled. Science is begun with the feeling of doubt, continued with a feeling of hope, and concluded with a feeling of agreement. But the feelings of fear, hate or attachment are not allowed a place in the methods of science, because they do not control our feelings so as to come to a feeling of agreement. But tell me, please, if reason is not a form of complex, social feeling, what is it, and how do we come to have it?
DamienS
3.9 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2010
I think I'll side with Thras on this one SH. It's such a pleasant change to observe a civil, well reasoned debate between two intelligent participants.
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
... not even all chromosomes ge(netical) no(ne) me(taphysic) our life one ...
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2010
When we empirically investigate the world, we do not do so without feeling, but with our feelings, both perceptive and emotive, carefully controlled.
I think you're associating perception with emotion and this is where we disagree. Emotional connotation can influence perception, and vice-versa, however, I don't see or experience the two as inexorably joined.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2010
You conflate growth according to plan with unpredictable evolution.
Actually no I didn't. Our personal Posterboy for creationist stupidity, kevinrtrs, said that you never see dust become life. Well plants create their fruits from the nutrients of the soil or biblical "dust".
Typical for evolutionist's total lack of understanding of basic concepts.
You mean basic concepts like geology, biology, medicine, agriculture, those sort of things that only work if evolution is accurate?
Growth acording to plan includes embryology.
Not in the plant world it doesn't.
It has nothing to do with classic macroevolution.
Explain what classic macroevolution is. I've never heard the term macroevolution used outside of wackjob religious nutbag circles with anything other than disdain due to the citation of blistering ignorance.

By the way, what is "growth according to plan"? I've never heard that one either.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2010
Excuse me, I said geology above. Geology has zero to do with the theory of evolution. It would be involved with some aspects of abiogenesis however you can consider that an error on my part to include.
gwargh
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2010
Excuse me, I said geology above. Geology has zero to do with the theory of evolution. It would be involved with some aspects of abiogenesis however you can consider that an error on my part to include.

Robert Hazen would disagree with you wholeheartedly.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2010
Excuse me, I said geology above. Geology has zero to do with the theory of evolution. It would be involved with some aspects of abiogenesis however you can consider that an error on my part to include.

Robert Hazen would disagree with you wholeheartedly.

Well I mean that the field of geology does not depend upon the Theory of Evolution for certification, however, geology would greatly influence evolution. The latter is not in question, and I think Hazen would approve.
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2010
RIL: You conflate growth according to plan...
S_H: Actually no I didn't. ... kevinrtrs, said that you never see dust become life.
No, because he wasn't there when God did it. Nor where anyone there when evolution allegedly did it.
RIL: ...evolutionist's total lack of understanding of basic concepts.
You mean basic concepts like... agriculture, those sort of things that only work if evolution is accurate?

One of the world's most renown geneticist and expert in applied genetics (US genetic plant programs) and the inventor of the so called "gene gun" wouldn't agree. Starting out as an evolution believer he ended up knowing exactly why alleged large scale evolution doesn't work in reality. In reality. It only seems to work in philosophy (that is, faith).

He spent his whole professional career studying immense amounts of generations of plant genes being subject to evolution (small scale adaptation). He has no good news for the evolution believers.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2010
No, because he wasn't there when God did it. Nor where anyone there when evolution allegedly did it.
Who said evolution caused abiogenesis? If you don't understand the theory, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to speak ill of it.
One of the world's most renown geneticist and expert in applied genetics (US genetic plant programs) and the inventor of the so called "gene gun" wouldn't agree. Starting out as an evolution believer he ended up knowing exactly why alleged large scale evolution doesn't work in reality. In reality. It only seems to work in philosophy (that is, faith).
Care to name him or are do you think we're going to convert because you made up some bullshit anecdote? Nelson Allen was not a biologist. Better yet, give us your objections to the Theory of Evolution and watch me tear them apart. That'll entertain me for all of 30 seconds or so.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2010
S_H: Explain what classic macroevolution is.
Extrapolated well known adaptation within the level where kinds (at the level of class/family somewhere) where there's this genetical barrier (GRN's controlling body plans) which cannot be crossed over.

I've never heard the term macroevolution used outside of wackjob religious nutbag circles...
Try ardent anti-creationist Eric Davidson, CalTech.

E.D would explain to you that no known evolutionary principle, especially not macroevolution seen as extrapolated microevolution (that is, mutation + gene duplication + natural selection) can account for the (evolutionary) development of body plans in Chordata.

And from that time on (~500million yrs, ~Cambrium/Precambrium) no evolution of these GRN has occured. Reason for this is that it's not possible to modify these GRN's without facing error catastrophe. No known form of evolution possible.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
E.D would explain to you that no known evolutionary principle, especially not macroevolution seen as extrapolated microevolution (that is, mutation + gene duplication + natural selection) can account for the (evolutionary) development of body plans in Chordata.
That's exactly the opposite of what he would say. Provide a source for your statement.
Reason for this is that it's not possible to modify these GRN's without facing error catastrophe.
Prove it. Multiple non-chordates utilize many different versions of the GRN genetic code. If you have a spine, you probably need an intact spinal protein genetic blueprint.
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2010
By the way, what is "growth according to plan"? I've never heard that one either.

Every biological living organism defined in and growing as (pre-)defined in DNA information, controlling its growth. Thing is, DNA defines biological logical units which, when they have been assembled, is in turn used to further interpret DNA to be read and interpreted in the embryo’s growth until adult.

Many (most?) genes used during this (compared to human information systems) extreme form of embryological information processing (repeatedly swapping between linear and 3D-modelled [and computed] information representation) are reused several times during and after the embryonal stage – where the gene has entirely different “meaning” in each entirely different context!

Disturb the original DNA plan in the wrong place and you probably won't want to see the awful results. Now you heard about it.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
Every biological living organism defined in and growing as (pre-)defined in DNA information, controlling its growth.
Well that'd be entirely wrong. DNA is not a limiting factor in growth, nor is it strictly a controlling factor.
Disturb the original DNA plan in the wrong place and you probably won't want to see the awful results. Now you heard about it.
Are you trying to say mutations are always deleterious? You're not making points, you're simply engaging in sophistry and straw man arguments.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2010
That's exactly the opposite of what [Eric Davidson] would say. Provide a source for your statement.
It's pretty exactly what he said.

Eric explictly claims that no known evolutionary principle (se last post) can produce the GRN's in Chordata.

The fact that multiple different GRN's exists doesn't explain how they came about. Existence isn't disputed, instead origins is the subject. You conflate things. And our genome is full of GRNs perfectly designed for its purpose.

And you conveniently missed the point - the insurmountable breed-barriers inherent in the GRNs for body plans.

In breeding knowledge of such barriers is basics since long, a serious problem to the evolutionary philosophy which see no barriers whatseoever to their biosophy.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2010
The fact that multiple different GRN's exists doesn't explain how they came about. Existence isn't disputed, instead origins is the subject. You conflate things. And our genome is full of GRNs perfectly designed for its purpose.
So you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Glad we got that settled. Mr. Lampa, provide a sourcable quote before you continue.
And you conveniently missed the point - the insurmountable breed-barriers inherent in the GRNs for body plans.

In breeding knowledge of such barriers is basics since long, a serious problem to the evolutionary philosophy which see no barriers whatseoever to their biosophy.
Word salad anyone?
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2010
That's exactly the opposite of what [Eric Davidson] would say. Provide a source for your statement.
That's pretty exactly what he said.

Eric explictly claims that no known evolutionary principle (se last post) can produce the GRN's in Chordata.

The fact that multiple different GRN's exists doesn't explain how they came about. Existence isn't disputed, instead origins is the subject. You conflate things. And our genome is full of GRNs perfectly designed for its purpose.

And you conveniently missed the point - the insurmountable breed-barriers inherent in the GRNs for body plans.

In breeding knowledge of such barriers is basics since long, a serious problem to the evolutionary philosophy which see no barriers whatseoever to their biosophy.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2010
RIL: The fact that multiple different GRN's exists doesn't explain how they came about. Existence isn't disputed, instead origins is the subject. You conflate things. And our genome is full of GRNs perfectly designed for its purpose.
Skeptic Heretic: So you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about... provide a sourcable quote before you continue.
Fanatics are the easy ones. Now let's see how far you're prepared to go.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
That's pretty exactly what he said.

Eric explictly claims that no known evolutionary principle (se last post) can produce the GRN's in Chordata.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18562679
And you conveniently missed the point - the insurmountable breed-barriers inherent in the GRNs for body plans.
So you're trying to say that since all animals have granulin, that evolution is false? You're insisting that since we have a common protein which would imply common origin, that we cannot have had a common origin?

Are you serious?
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2010
That's pretty exactly what he said.

Eric explictly claims that no known evolutionary principle (se last post) can produce the GRN's in Chordata.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18562679
So you made it into an art not adressing the claim?
So you're trying to say that since all animals have granulin...

Nope. Reread. But if you don't understand; never mind.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
So you made it into an art not adressing the claim?
The linked paper refutes your objection. Try reading it.
Nope. Reread. But if you don't understand; never mind.
You've posted it twice, it's word salad. The best decryption of your statement was posted above, if you think I've misunderstood it, elaborate. I understand you're swiss. If it is easier for you, write it in German.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2010
I doubt you'll get any more than word salad out of these guys, SH. They are blinkered by their attachment to themselves and anger that such attachment may not be as fully justified as they would like. They cannot understand that all their protestations come down to one assertion, and one that's provably false, that because something is not known by them, or is currently unknown to anybody, that it cannot ever come to be known. They cannot realize that the assertion "It was created thus" answers no questions, reveals no truths, cures no disease, eases no discomforts and fills no bellies.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2010
So you made it into an art not adressing the claim?
The linked paper refutes your objection. Try reading it.

I cited E.D., and you questioned that. But you refer to claim as refuting reality? In philosophy only. You owe me empirical evidence, not philosphy.
I understand you're swiss.
You understand wrong.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2010
Thras: They cannot understand that all their protestations come down to one assertion, and one that's provably false...

Fanatic evolution believers have abandoned empirical science long time ago. You don't prove large scale evolution, you only claim it. It's bad religion and bad science.

"It was created thus" answers no questions,

It answers the question about origins.

reveals no truths, cures no disease,... fills no bellies

Evolutionary philosophy, shaping world views and induced into and practiced in social politics caused the death of several hundred million people in the last 150 years.

It's death to both body and soul, but due to the filled bellies the basic lie behind (read evolution) won't be rejected anytime soon.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2010
I cited E.D., and you questioned that.
No, you named him and provided no source or citation.
But you refer to claim as refuting reality? In philosophy only. You owe me empirical evidence, not philosphy.
The peer reveiwed paper I supplied fits the proper delineation for a citation.
You don't prove large scale evolution, you only claim it.
The coal moths, the leptorids of Hawaii, and the monitor lizards of the south pacific are all staring you in the face. How do you explain their well documented evolution within relevant geological timescales?
Evolutionary philosophy, shaping world views and induced into and practiced in social politics caused the death of several hundred million people in the last 150 years.
Oh here it comes, Nazi/Stalin/Mao sophistry.
It's death to both body and soul, but due to the filled bellies the basic lie behind (read evolution) won't be rejected anytime soon.
Because prayer feeds starving children.....
Thrasymachus
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 13, 2010
I don't know how you can divide evolution into large scale and small scale, then mechanism itself does not allow for such a distinction. Evolution as a principle is not even a biological principle, but a mathematical/logical one. In any population that has variable characteristics where those characteristics make a difference in the success of reproduction, evolution will necessarily occur. The more complex the mechanism of inheritance is, the greater the divergence evolution can produce. There is no dividing line between micro and macro evolution. Human classifications like species, genus, class and family do not exist in nature. Only individual organisms exist.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2010
I cited E.D., and you questioned that.
No, you named him and provided no source

I told you his claims from results of empirical research. Would you bet that I have no source?
[b]The peer reveiwed paper
...is not empirical evidence, only one philospher supporting another sloppy philosopher isn't going to change the fact that large scale evolution exist only in the minds of the believer.

you only claim [large scale evolution].
The coal moths,... staring you in the face.
Woa... that silly thing again.

Adaptation, due to reversible inbuilt variation mechanism in the genome they gracefully turned white again. Sigh.
explain... within relevant geological timescales?
Let's make it million times harder: Reduce "relevant time scales" to thousands instead of millions of years, and only creation perspective have no problem explaining the extremly rapid speciation in known reality, due to the inbuilt variation mechanisms.

Evolutonists can't explain reality
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
Thrasy: I don't know how you can divide evolution into large scale and small scale, then mechanism itself does not allow for such a distinction.
Yes it can.

"Small scale" = variation within pre-existing kinds (limits) only, but no NOVEL biology.

"Large scale" = novel biology defined in genetic information.

Difference is that "change" (in small scale) is extrapolated into anything thinkable, but not real.

But "change" is't doing the trick. Tearing down a house, or deteriorating it's drawings is change, comparable to real mutations. Another entirely DIFFERENT form of "change" is building it up, or designing the drawing.

But the tricky evolutionist fanatic doesn't regard the two kinds of "change" having any essential difference. Because he don't want it to have. Because it ruins his day. And his world view.

Therefore evolutionists, as opposed to serious biologists, are pushing bad religion instead of empirical science.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2010
I told you his claims from results of empirical research. Would you bet that I have no source?
The peer reveiwed paper
Give us a link to it, big boy.
Adaptation, due to reversible inbuilt variation mechanism in the genome they gracefully turned white again. Sigh.
Yes, when their environment began to favor white they adapted through natural selection. Imagine that. just as evolution predicted.
Reduce "relevant time scales" to thousands instead of millions of years,
My other two examples, if you'd like to speak to them, occured over decades. So go right ahead and explain the development of completely different teeth, jaw bones, and in monitor lizards, a whole new diet and stomache valve arrangement.
and only creation perspective have no problem explaining the extremly rapid speciation in known reality, due to the inbuilt variation mechanisms.
Well seeing as your fall back position is "LOL, Magic!" We can see where this conversation is going.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2010
Thras: The more complex the mechanism of inheritance is, the greater the divergence evolution can produce.
OK, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that. This graph could illustrate the imagined "increase of evolutionary capability":

<

(yes, going from small capability to the left, to big "capability" on the right hand side).

Now, lets follow that graph backwards to the left, NOT CONSCIOUSLY ignoring the fact that (to the left) you obviously won't have the capability to ever get to the right, due to the lack of capability which is not yet there.

Richard Dawkins illustrated that problem very well in claiming that the first self replicating molecule must have come down here from the outer space and blah blah (consequently, if it didn't create itself, some extra terrestrial intelligent being created it and blah blah blah).

Tiresome folly this.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2010
S-H: Yes, when their environment began to favor white they adapted through natural selection. Imagine that. just as evolution predicted.

Evolution didn't predict anything such. It's plain normal adaptation, the triat (color) can swing back and fourth any numer of time. Because the genetic information was already there in the first place.

And ceating magichians come in and say "See there, how magically something NEW evolved!"

It didn't, though. Both the genetic info and the *mechanism* swinging this funny play back and fourth was there already from before. So nothing new, but you stand there with your butt bare. :(

Unbeliveable cheap tricks. Bleh.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2010
S_H: The peer reveiwed paper
Give us a link to it, big boy.
Why not uncover your butt first instead of letting Eric do it for me?

Reduce "relevant time scales" to thousands instead of millions of years,

My other two examples, if you'd like to speak to them, occured over decades. So go right ahead and explain the development of completely different teeth, jaw bones, ...

Same dishonest trick as with the moth (why not admit that dishonest dirty trick by the way?!); Instead you just try the same dirty trick again. Me explain to you:
The teeth were not invented, they just changed size. That is, adaptation. No novely, only variating parameters om that which already exist.

It's like you milling down a wheel to smaller size and come here claim that you invented it.

Bad boy. Shame on you.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
RIL: ...and only creation perspective have no problem explaining the extremly rapid speciation in known reality, due to the inbuilt variation mechanisms.
Well seeing as your fall back position is "LOL, Magic!"
No. You missed the point.

Rapid speciation isn't a problem when all the needed biological concepts are already in place, from start.

This is why rapid change (breeding isn't breaking news, remember) has always (ALWAYS) been a problem for evolutionists, but NEVER for creationists.

Creationists always new about breeding, and thus rapid change. But breeding is part or REALITY, which is the creationist's friend, while sloppy philosophy AND cruel reality is the evolutionist's enemy.

You have my sympathies though. :(

(but psst, get out of that messy confusion, quickly)

// Rolf Lampa
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 13, 2010
There's no such thing as "kinds" of organisms. Kinds are mere illusions, concepts we use in our heads so we don't have to run through everything individually. In nature, there's only individuals. There are no kinds anywhere. If you claim the division of macro-evolution and micro-evolution rests on the reality of kinds as a distinct thing from individuals, then your division is not real, as kinds are not real. Only individuals exist.
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2010
I don't know how you can divide evolution into large scale and small scale, the mechanism itself does not allow for such a distinction.

It's simple why creationists insist on this (false) distinction. It's because the sky fairy created all the animals in their current forms, they cannot change/morph/evolve into other 'finished' forms. They (begrudgingly) concede that small scale (micro-evolutionary) changes can occur (like eye or hair color), but not large scale changes like fish->reptile->human.

Ironically, if they concede that small-scale changes can and do occur, then if they follow the logical chain of reasoning (admittedly not their strong suit), then they would see that small changes over long periods of time do lead to large scale changes and new species.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2010
Why not uncover your butt first instead of letting Eric do it for me?
Did you just tell me to drop my pants? The reason why you won't provide a source for your claim is simple, you don't have one.
Rapid speciation isn't a problem when all the needed biological concepts are already in place, from start.
Then show me a pre-cambrian rabbit.
This is why rapid change (breeding isn't breaking news, remember) has always (ALWAYS) been a problem for evolutionists, but NEVER for creationists.
Rapid change isn't a problem for the Theory of evolution. A flu virus can evolve brand new structures in less than 7 days. Desert rats evolve new coloration in a period of 2-4 years. House flies change coloration and behavior in a mere 6 months. Rapid change only requires higher selective pressure, ie: a new environment or rapid change in existing environment.
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2010
Rapid change only requires higher selective pressure, ie: a new environment or rapid change in existing environment.

Also because some genes regulate other genes, a single mutation in the control gene(s) can lead to drastic changes in the expression of other genes, which in turn leads to large morphological changes in a single generation (eg, Hox genes).
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2010
Same dishonest trick as with the moth (why not admit that dishonest dirty trick by the way?!); Instead you just try the same dirty trick again. Me explain to you:
The teeth were not invented, they just changed size. That is, adaptation. No novely, only variating parameters om that which already exist.
Just so you recognize it, adaptation driven by selective pressures as you show above is exactly how evolution works. You're stating that evolution isn't the cause and then telling us that evolution is the cause.

How dishonest is that?
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2010
There's no such thing as "kinds" of organisms.
There is. And this is why evolutionists talk about Classes and Families and... of organisms. Those classifications are concepts based on differences and similarities in REAL organisms. That is, there's a definition constraining what belongs to each one of these classifications (strict thinking using discernment brought man to the moon, so please refrain from dismissing it).

So what exactly is "kinds" which is mentioned by creationists every now and them?

The word "kind" has the strictest definition and a simple one at that, useful for classifying real world animals and plants.

The definition is right there in the Bible text and reads something like; "bring forth after his kind".

Yes, after its kind, and not "a mesh up of any kind".

This is truly a definition of the word "kind". We know from breeding that there are barriers that cannot be over crossed, and modern genetics hints that the reason may lay in GRN's. // Rolf
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
S_H: adaptation driven by selective pressures as you show above is exactly how evolution works. ... How dishonest is that?

Adaptation isn't a problem. It is you claiming that, which is very dishonest of you. You know very well that adaptation is the form of real world evolution (read; adaptation, that is, "small scale evolution") that any informed creationist accepts simply because it can be demonstrated anytime anywhere.

Evolution IN THIS SENSE is adaptation limited to what is already there. So that isn't a problem. All informed creationists know that.

The dishonest part is to claim that this reversible change (read; adaptation), according to already existing and well functioning variation mechanisms, is producing novel biological concepts defined as genetic information in the DNA.

Some call it "bait-and-switch" (talking about adaptation as proof for novel biology). That's dishonest and dirty and cannot be proven empirically. Period.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
DamienS: ... a single mutation in the control gene(s) can lead to drastic changes in the expression of other genes, which in turn leads to large morphological changes in a single generation (eg, Hox genes).

Yup. This is what's called "reuse" already existing stuff, like procedures (in software) or modular reuse in mechanical construction.

The best designers do stuff like that. It's called good and efficient design in the real world.

No novel biology arise from repeating that which already exist.

Origins is about how the (biological) building blocks comes about, that is, their origins, and not about how they are used and reused, and adapted, in already fully functional organisms.

HOX genes is evidence for very good design applied in a biological system which is designed to adapt surrounding "cell context" gradually as to attach a new copy of a body part smoothly. Very good design indeed.

This simple fact is intentionally obscured by some.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
S_H: Rapid change isn't a problem for the Theory of evolution.

"Rapid" is no problem for someone who consciously pretends that we count GENERATIONS, not time. Show me an elphant evolving "new structures" in less than 7 days (and please, define "new structures" as to provide evidence for any novel biology that any present Harvard professor in the field of evolutionary biology wouldn't call a "fraud", poor you).

A flu virus can evolve brand new structures in less than 7 days.

Oh, here you go.

Desert rats evolve new coloration in a period of 2-4 years.

Oh, what made you switch from hours to years suddenly? And again and again consciously dishonestly refer to coloration as novel biology.

Origins (which is the subject in the evolution/creation controversy) isn't about modifying already existing traits, OK?

House flies change coloration and behavior in a mere 6 months.
More of the dirty tricks (deliberately?) obscuring the issue at hand.

//Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
DamienS:... It's simple why creationists insist on this (false) distinction. It's because the sky fairy created...

Would you please be kind and FIRST refute any obvious false claims, and only then go on to point out the idiots, which due to your valid argument should be held as lesser talented than you.

I'd be glad to be instructed if you had anything substantial to contribute to this discussion.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
...concede that small scale (micro-evolutionary) changes can occur (like eye or hair color), but not large scale changes like fish->reptile->human.

Ironically, if they concede that small-scale changes can and do occur, then if they follow the logical chain of reasoning

I can master this part of the reasoning. It's only philosophy until empirically proven which it is not. I know perfectly well that well documented adaptation is CLAIMED to produce novel biology. But I dispute that and you cannot prove your beliefs empirically.

then they would see that small changes over long periods of time do lead to large scale changes and new species.
I can "see" it. When I try to imagine it, I really can.

And then I wake up, lay aside my strong bent to the philosophical stuff and instead put on my more empirical scientific critical mindset, and poof - the dream goes away.

I for sure can imagine, but that won’t make reptiles from fish. :(

// Rolf Lampa
Javinator
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2010
But I dispute that and you cannot prove your beliefs empirically.


Neither can you yours. Thus the idiocy of the argument.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
There is. And this is why evolutionists talk about Classes and Families and... of organisms.
Actually that is taxonomy, and has a Christian creationist foundation that precedes evolution. We use the field of phylogeny and cladistics to show relationships, not subdivisions.
Adaptation isn't a problem. It is you claiming that, which is very dishonest of you. You know very well that adaptation is the form of real world evolution (read; adaptation, that is, "small scale evolution") that any informed creationist accepts simply because it can be demonstrated anytime anywhere.
So it is evolution, but it isn't evolution? Your stance hasn't changed, but you've layered more dishonesty over it.
"Rapid" is no problem for someone who consciously pretends that we count GENERATIONS, not time.
Because we do. Only idiots think evolution is change within an individual organism.
Show me an elphant evolving "new structures" in less than 7 days
That isn't evolution.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2010
Oh, what made you switch from hours to years suddenly?
Different organisms with different generational length will evolve at different rates. It is based on generational change. Evolution and adaptation don't occur within individuals, they occur within populations. Wow, you're completely unschooled.
And again and again consciously dishonestly refer to coloration as novel biology.
It is.
Origins (which is the subject in the evolution/creation controversy)
No, it is the controversy that ignorant creationists pretend exists.
isn't about modifying already existing traits, OK?
Actually evolution is about modifying existing traits. You really have never read anything about evolution have you?
It's only philosophy until empirically proven which it is not.
Evolution has been empirically proved. You're simply not well read.
I know perfectly well that well documented adaptation is CLAIMED to produce novel biology. But I dispute that.
So you're a liar
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 14, 2010
Honestly, as soon as I read
Show me an elphant evolving "new structures" in less than 7 days
I should have just stopped responding. This here shows that you don't even believe what you're saying to us. Either that or you're retarded. Evolution doesn't work within an individual. Your genes won't magically change and start creating new structures like some sort of ridiculous sci-fi movie. You have billions of copies of your DNA structure in your body. How possible is it that they all change, the exact same way one day and you grow a third eye? It isn't. It's absolutely impossible. If you think that is what evolution is, you're entirely unread and unschooled, and that is to be pitied.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2010
There are two things that really bother me in these conversations. Those who deny evolution often cite a controversy and state some us vs. them setup that doesn't exist and is the result of a really good marketting campaign by a bunch of book writing and movie producing charletans.

Then there's the actual controversy in evolution that is so often quote mined and dubiously used by the former participants.

The controversy in evolution is in the discussions of mechanisms. Primarily the argument of natural selection vs. punctuated equilibrium, etc.

Evolution is proved. It is a known element. We know evolution occurs. We also know that there is no controversy over whether there is natural selection or punctuated equilibrium, the controversy is which mechanism resulted in which attributes in human beings. That is the only controversy, and it is unsolved as so far. If you're arguing outside of the scope of this controversy, you had really better have a lot of demonstrable evidence.
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2010
Honestly, as soon as I read
Show me an elphant evolving "new structures" in less than 7 days
I should have just stopped responding.

There you compared GENERATIONS with change over TIME (Time itself has no impact on evolution of populations). Time implies x number of generations.

What a low level you're at.

You have accumulated som many dirty trick by now that I suspect that you conflated time & generations consciously in order to deliberately obscure the fact that evolutionary change makes sense only on generations.

What an ignorant fanatic. Sigh.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2010
S_H: There are two things that really bother me in these conversations. Those who deny evolution often cite a controversy and state some...
I refute every clumsy lie from YOU which you are not capable of defending.

You don't even understand what we are discussing, and for that reason you start to move focus elsewhere, like talk about citing this and citing that blah, blah, blah.

Embarrassing.

// Rolf Lampa
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (20) Oct 14, 2010
You should have stopped replying when he claimed that kinds were real. I have seen, played with and eaten many individual rabbits. I have never seen, played with nor eaten rabbithood.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 14, 2010
I've noticed that signing every post is a trait that correlates well with cranks. omatumr does it, and so does RIL.

A while back, I almost posted something to the effect of what's the point in trying to educate someone who is adamantly and demonstratively unwilling to learn. I canceled the post, since I decided it would be quite as useless as the rest of this thread.

Still, I now find myself writing this one... I suppose I just want to express my thanks for your efforts. While this flame war has been utterly pointless, it is nonetheless entertaining.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2010
You don't even understand what we are discussing, and for that reason you start to move focus elsewhere, like talk about citing this and citing that blah, blah, blah.

Embarrassing.

// Rolf Lampa


Ok Roflmao Lampa. You've shown yourself to be golden crocoduck worthy, do you really want the award? Is that why you're digging so deep for laughs?
JRDarby
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2010
S_H, good show.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2010
S_H, good show.
Thank you sir. At this point, the conversation has devolved so far into uselessness that I can only point and laugh.
JRDarby
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 14, 2010
I just wanted to encourage you. It is pointless arguing against anyone who believes first and questions second, but I think I learned a lot by reading your posts so even if no one's opinion changed at least one person got something out of it other than a laugh or frustration.
Yellowdart
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 14, 2010
We also know that there is no controversy over whether there is natural selection or punctuated equilibrium, the controversy is which mechanism resulted in which attributes in human beings.


Wouldnt punctuated equilibrium simply use natural selection? I thought PE referred to the rate more so than an actual mechanism.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 14, 2010
I just wanted to encourage you. It is pointless arguing against anyone who believes first and questions second, but I think I learned a lot by reading your posts so even if no one's opinion changed at least one person got something out of it other than a laugh or frustration.

That's why I do it. If an idiot will preach, others may listen. Without a counter point, they may even be believed.
Wouldnt punctuated equilibrium simply use natural selection? I thought PE referred to the rate more so than an actual mechanism.
Well not really. I should have probably used the terms gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Natural selection would be considered a form of gradualism where changes are always occuring from one generation to the next and cumulate in a long line of subtle difference. PE holds that changes are for the most part irrelevant until a tipping point is reached in which case you'll see spontaneous generation of new species at an accelerated rate. PE is questionable.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Oct 14, 2010
cont.

But PE is only now becomming questionable as we can sequence genes. The difficulty is the fact that we don't know all of the contributions to change or have an exact map of the function of every gene for every known species. Even then we may still find PE is true in some cases. I can't speak as to which is more accurate definitively, however if I was going to put a bet on it, I'd go with natural selection.
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 14, 2010
All informed creationists know that.

An oxymoron if ever I heard one!
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
Did you notice (Skeptic_Heretic, and more) how every time I demonstrated how your argument was wrong, subject misunderstood, or you were simply dishonest, you didn't reply by strengthening your argument or shaping up your moral. Instead you only used more name calling.

Such people have a problem with personal character, a serious lack of intellectual honesty, which must be pointed out so that people can see where the front of battle is actually fought. It's not about science.

BTW, it's time for you Skeptic_Heretic to email Eric Davidson and ask him to explain what you don't understand about his claim that no known classical variant of micro or macroevolution (incl. gene duplication.) can account for the GRN's controlling body plans in Chordata. Do not assume that Eric didn't claim that, in peer. rev. print. Interesting to see how far you would go.

Btw, natural selection works only on what exists. Selection selects, it doesn't create anything. Why do I have to explain that to you?
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
Sceptic Heretic: >>"Natural selection... a form of gradualism where changes are always occuring from one generation to the next and cumulate in a long line of subtle difference"

Natural selection selects on that which already exist. What exists is well designed biological variation mechanisms producing viable variants (that is, limited to it's kind) of that which already exist. This produces reversible genetical change. +Mutations which causes (sometimes beneficial) damage to genes, that is, irreversible changes.

In neither case any novel biological component will emerge (although traits may change).

What is debated among those who understand the issue is whether novel biology can arise from repeating the above "small scale adaptation". It's still only a philosophical discussion.

There's no empirical evidence for any novel biological information emerging from variation + natural selection.

Dawkins thinks that self replicating molecules came down from outer space.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
DamienS: An oxymoron if ever I heard one!
Are you streching your capability of producing an argument to your limits here?

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
JRDarby: I just wanted to encourage you. It is pointless arguing against anyone who believes first and questions second,
I question, refute systematically based on well known science, and you cannot answer. Painful, isn't it?

You believe, only. And that isn't enough to defend your philosophical belief system. You need to understand your belief system too in order to be able to defend your beliefs.

That's the evolution believers weak point. He can't defend himself. And when his intellect can't save him he questions the intellect of the one disclosing his shame.

Like liars always did.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
Having said this I need to also say that not all believers in evolution are dishonest. Most are deceived by cowards who wouldn't speak out the truth they know due to the negative effect on their careers.

And both science and religions gets corrupted.

And the reason I sign my posts is that my arguments stand. They make the evolutionist go bananas, but I don't have to be ashamed for telling the truth.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
Thrasymachus: You should have stopped replying when he claimed that kinds were real.
Biblical kinds has a very strict definition, just like Classes and Families etc. have. No problem with that.

What makes Eric Davidson's research on GRN's for body plans (embryology) so interesting is that his findings may explain why there is in the REAL WORLD (as opposed to the imagined world of the evolutionist) barriers which cannot be crossed over (breeders knew this all the time).

No KNOWN evolutionary mechanism can account for the evolution of GRNs controlling body plans he says (although he still believes that there must some unknown mechanism, since he denies God, which is what origins is all about, it's not about science as you can see).

And no evolution of these GRN's has occurred ever since, either (the last ~530 million years, that is).

Strange impotent evolution mechanism you have put your faith in. Think sorry for you people having reality as your worst enemy.

// Rolf Lampa
DamienS
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
RIL, you're a total idiot.
RIL
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
DamienS: RIL, you're a total idiot.
I think your argument here still allows for some improvement.

Kind regards,
// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
Did you notice (Skeptic_Heretic, and more) how every time I demonstrated how your argument was wrong, subject misunderstood, or you were simply dishonest,
You mean all zero times?
BTW, it's time for you Skeptic_Heretic to email Eric Davidson and ask him to explain what you don't understand about his claim that no known classical variant of micro or macroevolution (incl. gene duplication.) can account for the GRN's controlling body plans in Chordata. Do not assume that Eric didn't claim that, in peer. rev. print.
Show me where he said that.
That's the evolution believers weak point. He can't defend himself.
Well there's no need to defend yourself from people like yourself. You've again stated that evolution exists, but then said it is limited to kinds. Define kinds.
And when his intellect can't save him he questions the intellect of the one disclosing his shame.
Actually, I questioned your intellect from the beginning as it is very clear you lack intellect.
Javinator
5 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
No KNOWN evolutionary mechanism can account for the evolution of GRNs controlling body plans he says


This is not an argument for intelligent design. This is an argument stating that current evolutionary theory is not complete.

Regardless of which side of the argument you're on, it is clear that your arguments are not grounded in logic simply based on the way you seem to draw conclusions.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
This is not an argument for intelligent design. This is an argument stating that current evolutionary theory is not complete.
Actually, it isn't an argument at all. The GRN gene is responsible for the creation of the complex protein Granulin. A single protein would never lead to an indication of potential body plan.

Roflmao Lampa is insisting that a college professor in biology is stating that a single protein is responsible for the totality of available body plans and couldn't have done so. Yet he can't provide a reference or sourcable citation for this assertion.

He's lying to create a pseudo argument that doesn't exist. Similar to how people of his ilk tried to insist that Darwin converted to Christianity and rejected his own theories on his deathbed.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
Ok, here's the most awesome part of this conversation. One of the biology department at Caltech just returned my email inquiry and sent me the papers that roflmao lampa may be referring to.
http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

GRN is short for Gene Regulatory Network. Davidson posits that Gene Regulatory Networks are the basis for the diversity of body plans.

@Roflmao, you're such a moron it hurts to think about how brutally you mangled this research inside your head. Gene regulation is a proved element and is REQUIRED by current evolutionary models. You committed ideological suicide in your very first post. My pity for you grows with each of your posts.
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
Skeptic heretic: Show me where he said that.
Soon. I tried to see if you would prove your ignorance first.

BTW, do you, brave man, always insult people anonymously?

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
Skeptic heretic: Show me where he said that.
Soon. I tried to see if you would prove your ignorance first.

BTW, do you, brave man, always insult people anonymously?

// Rolf Lampa

I think you need to read the post above. Your lie has been made plain. You should be embarassed, and as you're religious, you should also recognize that you've born false witness, which is a crime punishable by death and eternal torment in any of the particular faiths you may ascribe to.

Did you really think I wouldn't check? Do you think that people who engage in science really wouldn't go back and ensure they had the correct understanding of what they state to be fact?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2010
FYI, for anyone interested, Dr. Davidson's Book "The Regulatory Genome:gene regulatory networks in development and evolution" is available on Amazon and Google, and it's a very quick read so far. The link gets mangled when I post it here but there's an excerpt available on google books.

If you're really interested in what GRNs actually are and their implications to evolution and biological research, it's a must buy.

Javinator
5 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2010
Syllogism

God is unknown.
Some things are unknown.
Therefore some things are God.

In terms of letters:

A = God
B = Anything else
C = Unknown

A is C
B is C
Therefore B is A

Again with the fallacy of the undistributed middle. Seems like a common theme in this thread. B and A are not connected even though they are both covered by the region C.

Example:
-3 is a Real number
5 is a Real number
Therefore -3 = 5.

This is your logic with numbers. It is seriously not logical.
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
Skeptic Heretic: Your lie has been made plain.
You are making a fool of your self.
Eric Davidson.: "This challenges the generally time homogeneous view of most evolutionary biolo-
gists. Current microevolutionary thinking assumes
that observed types of genetic change (from sin-
gle base substitutions to gene duplications) are
sufficient to explain all evolutionary events, past
and present.

You see, Eric is questioning that classic micro evolution (the step-by-step process including gene duplication) could account for the GRN's involved.

Exactly as I stated.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
And regarding these GRNs stability (that is, reluctance to change) he goes on to say:
Eric Davidson: "It would follow that these kernels must have been assembled during the initial diversification of the Bilateria and have retained their internal character since.

Eric concludes:
but once formed and operating to specify particular body parts, they would have become refractory to subsequent change.

Exactly as I said.

This is Eric's own words. And you even managed to insult him calling him "a college professor".

I have deep respect for Eric Davidsons research, while you insult him, and while you made up your own lies which you ascribed to me.

Disgusting.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
BTW,
Skeptic heretic: FYI, for anyone interested, Dr. Davidson's Book "The Regulatory Genome:gene regulatory networks in development and evolution"

From which page do you want me to cite the book for you? I sit at home, streched out my hand to the bookshelf, and now I hold it in my hand.

Which page S.Heretic?

// Rolf Lampa
JRDarby
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
You see, Eric is questioning that classic micro evolution (the step-by-step process including gene duplication) could account for the GRN's involved.

Exactly as I stated.

// Rolf Lampa


So what you're saying is that he's questioning the mechanism, not the grand theory? In other words, he is no help to your argument at all?

You can't disprove evolution by attacking facets of it. The idea is that organisms change because their biology changes, and that happens on a genetic level. Perhaps we have an incomplete understanding of how that happens, but we have a very good understanding and empirical evidence that it DOES happen. Attacking ideas of its mechanism is silly if your goal is to attack evolution but profitable if your idea is to advance our understanding of it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 15, 2010
I have deep respect for Eric Davidsons research, while you insult him, and while you made up your own lies which you ascribed to me.
Then perhaps you should actually read it rather than quote mine it.
A notable feature of the paleontological record of animal evolution is the establishment by the Early "Cambrian of virtually all phylum-level body plans.
ie: a head, a torso and adapted limbs be they 0, 2, or 4. So can you name a post cambrian life form that doesn't fit this mold?
And you even managed to insult him calling him "a college professor".
What would you call a professor for the College of Biology @ Caltech?
You see, Eric is questioning that classic micro evolution could account for the GRN's involved.
No, he's saying it takes more than one change to create a novel phenotype.
From which page do you want me to cite the book for you?
I'd prefer you simply read it again, then again, then again, and maybe you'll learn his actual meanin
RIL
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
Rolf Lampa: You see, Eric is questioning that classic micro evolution (the step-by-step process including gene duplication) could account for the GRN's involved. Exactly as I stated.
JRDarby: So what you're saying is that he's questioning the mechanism, not the grand theory? In other words, he is no help to your argument at all?

He's questioning that the neo-darwinist mechanism proposed by fanatic Richard Dawkins, can account for the development of the GRN's involved.

Not that Eric would put it that way, but in effect Eric's conclusion is, being an outspoken anti-creationist AFAIK (I pointed out that too earlier), an indirect insult to Richard Dawkins intellect and fanatic belief in step-by-step evolution by gene duplications + mutations + natural selection (yeah, that which all fanatics worship which by no means can explain what we see out there)

Eric D. may not like creationists, but he deserves respect for an intellectual honesty above many others

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2010
He's questioning that the neo-darwinist mechanism proposed by fanatic Richard Dawkins, can account for the development of the GRN's involved.
Again your deluded mind has invented a fallacy.
I'd recommend you read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins, where he goes on in depth about Gene regulatory networks and complex protein machinery.
Not that Eric would put it that way,

I think the reasoning behind that is clear.
JRDarby
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 15, 2010
He's questioning that the neo-darwinist mechanism proposed by fanatic Richard Dawkins, can account for the development of the GRN's involved.

... in effect Eric's conclusion is ... an indirect insult to ... belief in step-by-step evolution by gene duplications + mutations + natural selection

Eric D. ... deserves respect for intellectual honesty


Okay, but you're missing the point. He isn't questioning evolution, merely one hypothesis (theory, really, in the scientific sense and not the colloquial one) that explains a mechanism by which the holistic phenomenon may occur.

Of course he's being intellectually honest, but candidly I don't think you are because you seem to be grasping at straws to try to not have to believe that evolution exists.

Let me set your mind at ease. You don't have to believe in evolution. No one cares if you do or don't. But it's heartbreaking to see you try so hard to rationally justify your irrational nonbelief in unreasonable ways.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
JRDarby: you're missing the point.

OK, I try once more:

(repetition): In the paper Eric Davidson is questioning that the neo-darwinist mechanism proposed by fanatic Richard Dawkins can account for the development of the GRN's involved.

Exactly so. No more, no less. You missed the point twice now.

And Eric D. would most probably confirm my wording, standing by the conclusion in his paper, although possibly stripping out my mentioning of the named collegue... ahem.

As the gentleman he seems to be, he would probably also add to it that ignorant fools shut up as to not bring about a bad reputation to the evolution thing.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
(repetition)
You can repeat your meme all you want to. It won't make it true. Simply ask the Flat Earth Society.
As the gentleman he seems to be, he would probably also add to it that ignorant fools shut up as to not bring about a bad reputation to the evolution thing.
You mean like those who misrepresent his statements in order to fulfill a self-suiting agenda, like yourself.

So are you going to tell us that evolution is real now as opposed to stating it isn't? Will you pull a full 180 in an attempt to save face as your cultural imperative demands? Or will you be a scholarly gentleman and state explicitly that you are incorrect and have mischaracterized Dr. Davidson's writings in order to forward a lie upon people who you thought wouldn't source your statements and determine the utter lack of integrity and vacant pseudo-intellectualism you've broadcast to all of us?
Thrasymachus
2.7 / 5 (19) Oct 15, 2010
Dear God (forgive the expression). Not only do you not know anything about evolution, but you don't know anything about WORDS and DEFINITIONS. I can define something as precisely as I like, that doesn't mean it exists. In fact, if I can give a complete and precise definition of something, it CANT exist as anything other than an idea. I can give you a precise and complete definition of computers in general. Every computer you will ever encounter will fall under that definition, and nothing that isn't a computer would ever be included. But I cannot give you a complete and precise definition of THIS COMPUTER, i.e. the one I'm typing this on before the end of the lifetime of the universe. To sum up, what is real cannot be defined, only pointed to or indicated. The concepts and ideas we use to talk and think about what is real are not themselves real. If you think they are, you need to get your ego deflated.
Gawad
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2010
S_H, good show.


Hear, hear. Damn fine skirmish in the fight expose the minions of hypocrisy, darkness and ignorance, S_H et al.
Seriously, an elephant evolving traits in 7 days? Dismissing requests for a citation by asking someone to drop their pants? And then having the gall to call someone else a [pick your ad homonym]? (Jesus, save us from the Christians!) However, from everything he's written, I'm not sure Mr. Lampa needs anyone's help to sink into the bowels of willful ignorance, he is evidently entirely capable of grabbing a couple of heavy stone tablets and diving in head first all on his own.
Gawad
4 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
DamienS: RIL, you're a total idiot.
I think your argument here still allows for some improvement.

Kind regards,
// Rolf Lampa


You, sir, have provided support for it in spades. And we are still waiting for that citation from E.D.

Rotflmao
Gawad
5 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2010
DamienS: RIL, you're a total idiot.
I think your argument here still allows for some improvement.

Kind regards,
// Rolf Lampa


You, sir, have provided support for it in spades. And we are still waiting for that citation from E.D.

Rotflmao


You know, the one that supports your claim?
Yellowdart
5 / 5 (4) Oct 15, 2010
Well not really. I should have probably used the terms gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Natural selection would be considered a form of gradualism where changes are always occuring from one generation to the next and cumulate in a long line of subtle difference. PE holds that changes are for the most part irrelevant until a tipping point is reached in which case you'll see spontaneous generation of new species at an accelerated rate. PE is questionable.


Aye, in essence you are discussing rate. Where as questionable, it is certainly quite possible that the rate has not be a consistant slow as you project solely from gradualism.

It seems highly ineffecient as well in response to major ecological issues, like a asteroid strike or even disease. Such responses would have to occur punctually for organisms to continue to reproduce.

It is not that the mechanism changes its function, only the rate.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
@Yellowdart,
It is not that the mechanism changes its function, only the rate.
While it can't be excluded that environmental stress can boost mutation rates, more likely is that mutation rates following major catastrophes stay about constant, but the mutants have higher rates of survival: because the competing and predator populations had been similarly decimated, and previously-filled niches defended by well-adapted organisms may now be wide-open for fresh and relatively inefficient mutants to colonize.

This, IMHO, is the most plausible underlying dynamic for PE.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
Skeptic Heretic: "mischaracterized Dr. Davidson's writings in order to forward a lie upon people who you thought wouldn't source"
No no, I didn't misrepresent anything. Instead I explicitly emphasized that
1. Eric Davidson is an outspoken anti-creationist
2. and that I'd like to see how far you would go in assuming that I didn't have a source.
3. I also expected you to make a fool out of your self.

Well, you did. And adding to your folly you insulted Eric Davidson calling him a “college professor”. How brave thou art anonymous hero.

But of course I have the source. Just like I have the book you made a fuzz about. Which page do you want me to cite?

And any kid knowing about Google would find my quotations within a minute. Peer review and all.

Hopefully Eric's colleagues at Caltech will contact you, or PhysOrg, in order to encourage you to start behave your self like an adult

I thought I already had met with the worst kind before, but I hadn't.

// Rolf Lampa
JRDarby
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 15, 2010
I just don't understand. Since when has "college professor" been an insult? And where in the world do you come from that it is? If anything it's more of a marker of status.

I'm reasonably certain that you've misunderstood what S_H said. S/he was merely pointing out that someone with a high level of education, like a college professor, would not make such an elementary mistake as you did in thinking one gene "responsible for the totality of available body plans."
RIL
1 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
JRDarby: "college professor"... I'm reasonably certain that you've misunderstood what S_H said
Or he said it in a condescending way with the clear intent to make it sound condescending in order to down play my reference.

Why would anyone speak to a person with such a disgusting attitude. He really made me feel sick, I humbly admit that.

Repulsive.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
The only people which have been talking about "one gene" in the context of the mentioned GRNs is you and the signature Skeptic Heretic. And in so doing you showed that you don't even know that GRNs consists of a whole bunch of genes. GRNs are complex networks made out of multiple genes which in assembled form are called "Genetic Regulatory Networks" (= GRN).

The GRNs "kernels" (on the compound more complex level) I was commenting on and quoted about, directly (copy & paste) from a paper of E.D., are in turn interacting with other more peripheral GRNs.

But here I hear only silly claims about "single genes", demonstrating only painful ignorance and an unrestrained boasting attitude.

// Rolf Lampa
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2010
GRNs: the next frontier in "irreducible complexity". Aiming to succeed where eyeballs, flagellae, and blood clotting systems have so miserably failed.

Same bovine excrement, different day...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
And any kid knowing about Google would find my quotations within a minute. Peer review and all.
When you believe you have a superior understanding you should declare your acronyms. GRN is used in about 18 different places in the field of genomics. The fact you don't know that shows your relative knowledge within the discussion at hand.
Why would anyone speak to a person with such a disgusting attitude. He really made me feel sick, I humbly admit that.
Two things, 1) there's been absolutely nothing humble about your speach so far. 2) I'm rather pleased that you've had such a feeling in regards to being shown that you're horridly offbase and often wrong, especially since the text you quotemine is so elegantly written. I'm quite surprised that you refused to list your source off the bat, this is an indicator that you are a simple troll.

Your post history on the multiple forums you follow is a secondary indicator.

Trolling MS about sharepoint coding, really? Sad.
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2010
RIL: "Rapid" is no problem for someone who consciously pretends that we count GENERATIONS, not time.

Skeptic heretic: Because we do. Only idiots think evolution is change within an individual organism.

Bluff again. I was ironically referring to generation rates when you were bragging about flu viruses evolving "in less than 7 days." So YOU were comparing TIME instead of GENERATIONS (DAYS and YEARS where mentioned). My original claim:
There you compared GENERATIONS with change over TIME (Time itself has no impact on evolution of populations). Time implies x number of generations.
And for this I complained over your "low level".

So YOU compared organisms with extremely different GENERATION rate by referring to the TIME it took for change ignoring the different generation rates (not comparable). Hence my ironical statement about how much an elephant "evolves in 7 days"! (none, of course!)

This is how dirty tricks you must use to look good, S_Heretic.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
And any kid knowing about Google would find my quotations within a minute. Peer review and all.
When you believe you have a superior understanding you should declare your acronyms.
So you don't know how to search using Google?
GRN is used in about 18 different places...
Google. Try using the exact quotes, don't trick with them, don't mislead anyone, just copy and paste the exact quotes and voila, you'll find it.

Every time I search on the exact quotes I posted here I get almost hundred hits (84, etc). There are three (3) explicit exact quotes.

I'm quite surprised that you refused to list your source off the bat,
Why? I told you I wanted to see how far you'd go in insulting me based on the assumption that I wouldn't have the source.

It's like saying: "Please go ahead make a fool out of your self (if you wish) by mindlessly raving around spitting an showing contempt for no good reason other than... contempt and lack of self control."

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 15, 2010
That is, there were never any problem with the source. And posting the exact quotations meant that the sources where available to you 24x7 ever since. But your contempt shut your mind and you went banas (not unexpectedly though).

Painfully enough, you Skeptic Heretic didn't even grasp the simple fact that GRNs is not about single genes, so why would I waste my time disputing the quotes with you?

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (6) Oct 15, 2010
Trolling MS about sharepoint coding, really? Sad.
???

I have never coded a line for Sharepoint. But I'm aware about the design of skins for Drupal and Mediawiki, with a Sharepoint look and feel.

You seem to try hard to not get one thing right don't you? Rotten.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (7) Oct 15, 2010
PinkElephant: GRNs: the next frontier in "irreducible complexity". Aiming to succeed where eyeballs, flagellae, and blood clotting systems have so miserably failed
I don't think that Eric Davidson's intent was to say exactly THAT in his scientific papers.

But since useless genes and the molecular level isn't "visible" to natural selection it also can't select for the step-for-step intermediate stages of non functional GRN's in the making (and worst of all, GRNs in general are crucial for real functioning biology)

So the lack of a known mechanism creating them isn't a minor thing, and thus E.D. honestly pointed out that there's some more work to do for evolutionary biologists to explain them.

My primary interest in GRN kernels for controlling body plans lays in that they may explain the basic genetic barriers (cross breeding impossible) for certain groups, like cats remaning cats, horses remaining horses, etc. That is, created kinds stay within their kinds.

// Rolf Lampa
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (10) Oct 15, 2010
useless genes and the molecular level isn't "visible" to natural selection
No gene is useless, and no gene is invisible. Every gene gets transcribed, and every gene produces RNA, proteins, and has interactions with other genes. Even when there is no readily apparent impact on the outward body structure, the genotype is subject to other selection pressures including but not limited to disease, metabolic, behavioral, and degenerative/regenerative aspects.
the lack of a known mechanism creating them
Evolution proceeds via heritable changes + selection. Heritable changes can result from multiple mechanisms. The main one is mutations in DNA of germ (sperm/egg) cells or early embryos (including both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA), such as single-nucleotide polymorphisms and duplication/excision/transposition errors in DNA during meiosis or mitosis in early embryos. Another salient avenue is viral and/or bacterial DNA/RNA/organelle insertion into germ cells or early embryos.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2010
they may explain the basic genetic barriers (cross breeding impossible)
The explanation is much broader than any particular GRN. All parts of the genome (including the resulting proteome) have to work together and in relative harmony to produce a viable organism. When you take two organisms that are too different, the odds of producing a well-balanced and viable organism from combining the two sets of DNA in 50-50 proportion are low indeed. Quite simply, once two clades spend too much time apart from each other, the large number of independently accumulated mutations in their genomes make it impossible for them to have viable offspring together. That's the origin of species. By analogy, you were able to readily swap parts between two PCs made by different manufacturers in year 1995, but you can't swap parts between a 1995 PC and a 2010 PC -- too many accumulated changes, even though the changes from month to month (or day to day) were never all that drastic.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2010
PinkElephant: The explanation is much broader than any particular GRN.
No. Instead there are DIFFERENT explanations to speciation. For example, as a creationist I know just as well as any evolutionist about speciation through step-by-step mutations DETERIORATING an existing genome until the cannot interbreed. The GRN's mentioned, on the other hand,

a viable organism... much time apart... accumulated mutations in their genomes make it impossible for them to have viable offspring together. That's the origin of species.
Wrong. You conflate philosophy abpout the past with present day biology. What we observe in the present is deterioration of already existing biology/genome.
By analogy,
... you wouldn't exist if your parents didn't already exist before you did, with a fully functional biology already in place. Instead you, and I, have a more DETERIORATED genome than our parents.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2010
...speciation through step-by-step mutations DETERIORATING... until the cannot interbreed. The GRN's mentioned, on the other hand,
Ops, too long text was clipped in the wrong place.

In any case, apart from several different ways of causing speciation through step-by-step changes in genes (including change of a gene's loci on the chromosome) there seems to be more "ancient" and foundational mechanisms as well.

And here GRN's may well play a role. Apart from the fact that Eric Davidson’ GRN kernels doesn't seem to be possible to evolve using "classic" evolution (according to Dawkins neo-darwinism), GRN's are causing evolutionist yet another serious problem: Not only the "data" (i.e. static DNA info) but also the "logical processing units" of data (GRNs) plays a crucial role in processing and implementing data (DNA) through embryonal stages. And here the GRN's may (perhaps) explain basic insurmountable barriers which never has been crossed (cats, horses etc).

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2010
...cont.

By analogy with modern computers one could say that GRN's would be incompatible differences in the Operating Systems (OS), while other minor changes in genes and their loci (which can cause speciation in our days) would be incompatible differences, due to deterioration, in the software to be run on its respective OS.

The analogy is of couse not perfect, and always limited. For example, if the example above would attempt to involve "hardware" there would be difficult to think of a real computer being MADE of a mixture of its data & software, which is the case in real biology...

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2010
PinkElephant: By analogy... 1995 PC and a 2010 PC... too many accumulated changes... changes from month to month (or day to day) were never all that drastic."
Design changes misses the point, though.
Why not instead use a semantically valid comparison like using TWO 1995 PCs where one is worn out with a broken memory card etc, and the other is not, and then we swap parts from the worn out to the non broken machine. The result wouldn't surprise anyone. Also the non worn out wouldn't work.

But an even better analogy would be to allow also the broken one to at least start up, and try to let them communicate and share a processing load in a grid computing task, and watch the result. One of the machines wouldn't contribute at all due to malfunctioning memory or a broken network card.

Thus "interbreeding" (grid computing) wouldn't be impossible.

Such step-for-step deterioration of originally well designed (biological) machinery is what we observe everywhere today.

// Rolf Lampa
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2010
Why not instead use a semantically valid comparison like using TWO 1995 PCs where one is worn out with a broken memory card etc, and the other is not, and then we swap parts from the worn out to the non broken machine.
Life forms are infinitely more complex than this, they also share natural chemical affinity, which PC parts do not.

You seem to have great difficulty maintaining a consistent stancce, and since you're pounding the creationist view over and over we can most assuredly say you're wrong. So if you want to keep bleeting out an ancient and incorrect argument, go right ahead. This conversation bores the rest of us.
Painfully enough, you Skeptic Heretic didn't even grasp the simple fact that GRNs is not about single genes, so why would I waste my time disputing the quotes with you?
Your inability to be clear and concise is not my problem.
RIL
1 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2010
RIL: Why not instead use a semantically valid comparison like using TWO 1995 PCs...
Skeptic Heretic: Life forms are infinitely more complex than...
So now you decided that only evolutionists are allowed to use analogy.
...since you're pounding the creationist view... we can most assuredly say you're wrong.
You didn't manage to refute a single claim, which you promised to do in... was it 30 seconds or something?

Instead you got yourself occupied with mindless barking and spitting even using every dirty dishonest trick (a typical behavior which I expected you to fall in, and you did), all this instead of refuting my arguments.

And not you blame me for you not even grasping the simple fact that GRNs is not about single genes. The last part I did NOT expect though.

I'm more used to debating civilized evolutionists. Your bad attitude made me realize early that it couldn't but go wrong for you. I should have refused to let you do so much bad to yourself.

// Rolf Lampa
RIL
1 / 5 (8) Oct 16, 2010
Skeptic Heretic: "give us your objections to the Theory of Evolution and watch me tear them apart. That'll entertain me for all of 30 seconds or so.
You're on overtime I'm afraid.

// Rolf Lampa
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (21) Oct 16, 2010
It is not logically possible to disprove a Creation myth. Any myth, it doesn't matter which one. That's why they cannot be an explanation for anything. An explanation must at least be able to be wrong in order for it's actually being right to be meaningful and useful to us. Unless, of course, you don't require explanations, but rather comfort for your cowardice and fear.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2010
So now you decided that only evolutionists are allowed to use analogy.
No, I'm saying your analogy sucks.
You didn't manage to refute a single claim, which you promised to do in... was it 30 seconds or something?
No, I said ripping up your objections to evolution would keep me entertained for about 30 seconds or so. Problem is, you never produced any. You thought you did, but you were merely unclear, or perhaps unaware of what you were talking about.
Instead you got yourself occupied with mindless barking and spitting
Then call upon your heavenly father for an exorcism.
And not you blame me for you not even grasping the simple fact that GRNs is not about single genes.
Well if you knew that GRN is used in about 10 or so places in genomics perhaps you would have clarified what you were referring to when asked all 5 times.
The last part I did NOT expect though.
Of course not, you'd never expect me to actually call the researcher, because you're a clown.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 17, 2010
I'm more used to debating civilized evolutionists.
The time to be civilized when dealing with internet trolls, especially creationist internet trolls, is over. Your kind are retarding our ability to progress as a species.

If I had it my way, you'd be forced to go back to school until you understood the basic tenets of logic, philosophy, and debate until you could demonstrate them properly.
DamienS
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 17, 2010
If I had it my way, you'd be forced to go back to school until you understood the basic tenets of logic, philosophy, and debate until you could demonstrate them properly.

And above all - critical thinking. Critical thinking should be taught in school at about the same time as reading, writing and arithmetic.