Creation Science?

[SmackdownHotel]

The Valsalvar maneuver, eh?

 

[xirtam]

Irregardless, the proof you seek is in the Genome. Did you know that nearly all animals carry a mutation gene sequence that when activated causes massive mutation rates in the population?

The word "Regardless" has evolved an "Ir." Did it have a mutation gene sequence? How did it evolve... how did it activate... why is it found only in animals... is it a defect?

You know what else causes massive mutation rates? Radiation. Unfortunately, when radiation is "activated," you wind up killing off your species sometimes.

I still haven't heard any attempts at refutation of Maetryx's Ontological and Cosmological arguments. Based on those arguments, it still makes sense to believe in a supernatural Creator.

Valsalva, you're talking about a highly complex system that constructs complex units from simple units. We all agree that this doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but how do these systems evolve? How do you generate the systems responsible for generating the systems? In all my biology classes, they seem to explain the processes whereby organs function, but they don't explain how they get there or how they actually work. Back to irreducible complexity in several cases.

 

[monotony]

Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Originally posted by: monotony
Where else in science does order come from disorder? I'm supposed to believe that the longer we wait, the more order is restored in the universe? Things are COMING TOGETHER by chance, just because we've waited long enough? Seem strange to anyone else?

It would only seem strange to someone not well-versed in biology. They teach this in AP/Honors Biology in High School or in any biology class in any half-rate college...even at UC Riverside, I would surmise.

The answer to this question is two-fold:
1) Let's consider two oxygen atoms at a reasonable temperature. When these two oxygen atoms approach each other, the will spontaneously form a covalent bond and become O2. The lay person might argue that this is "order" coming from "disorder" and that this violates thermodynamic laws. In reality, each individual oxygen atom is more stable (at a lower energy state) when bonded to the other -- that is, as O2. In effect, the combined arrangement of orbitals and shared electrons is actually more disorderly. Thus, when you use the terms "order" and "disorder," you have to use them strictly in thermodynamic terms (e.g. Gibbs energy), not in semantic terms.

2) However, more orderly molecules arise spontaneously all the time. How do you think you store sugar as glycogen in your muscles? Our body has a buttload of so-called ANABOLIC pathways that produce substances that are more thermodynamically orderly (less entropy) and at a higher energy state. The reason we are able to do this is something called the coupled reaction. Our biochemical pathways use the energy released from breaking down a complex substance into simpler ones in order to construct more complex ones from simpler ones.

This concept is very basic for anyone in the natural sciences. Thus, an increase in order might seem strange to you, but not to anyone with basic science knowledge (and i'm not talking about anything advanced here.)

Valsalva

So you think that either of those two examples are relevant at all here? Neither of those two examples have anything to do with what I was talking about. I find it interesting that you feel it necessary to be condescending in your post to try to get your point across. So let me clarify...I am not talking about an insignificant O2 covalent bond. I am also not talking about our body BUILDING complex substances that it needs to survive. What our body builds, and the oxygen bonds you speak of, are totally irrelevant to the argument that over time, things move toward chaos and not order. My point is this... "Chance" does not cause anything. Things that are caused by processes that we observe to be "random" we associate with increasing disorder, not more complex design. Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key factor by which simple life forms evolve into more complex ones. A scientific hypothesis is tested through laboratory experiment/observation and theoretical analysis. Regarding random genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we can conclude the following: In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics. Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection. In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic mutations have created innovative functionality. They have never been observed to create more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms. The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the consequence of transcriptional errors and random noise corrupting highly coded information. If we took the binary file of Win 2k, and changed random bits in the code, that we would actually at some point get new features? No. Same deal w/ life, except on another level of complexity.

 

[rahvin]

My point is this... "Chance" does not cause anything.

Better explain that to the ovum that was fertilized by chance to form you.

Things that are caused by processes that we observe to be "random" we associate with increasing disorder, not more complex design.

So ICE is more disordered than liquid water.

Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key factor by which simple life forms evolve into more complex ones. A scientific hypothesis is tested through laboratory experiment/observation and theoretical analysis. Regarding random genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we can conclude the following: In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics.

And what are the probabilities? Please provide the appropriate statistical analysis with coresponding assumptions.

Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection.

Wow, now there is a meaningless statement.

In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic mutations have created innovative functionality. They have never been observed to create more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms.

HIV is a mutation of the SIV virus, genetically it is completely different from the original in that the host for the virus changed completely, in addition the target and effectivness of the virus was significantly altered.

The Amobea contains 300x more genetic material than a human being.

Please compare and contrast this data with a solution that explains both.

The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the consequence of transcriptional errors and random noise corrupting highly coded information. If we took the binary file of Win 2k, and changed random bits in the code, that we would actually at some point get new features? No. Same deal w/ life, except on another level of complexity.

DNA is not written in binary, it is also not written like a computer program. It is a language that one letter change can alter the entire meaning of a work (and have it still make sense). A single change in a sequence can result in a minor modification in how a protein is constructed, or it could have no effect at all. Maybe you should do a little studying on how proteins are constructed using the DNA molecue, in particular how the chains are copied and folded.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Ice is not more disordered than water.

 

[rahvin]

Ice is not more disordered than water.

Exactly.

[edit] I misread the above quote[/edit]

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

So you think that either of those two examples are relevant at all here? Neither of those two examples have anything to do with what I was talking about. I find it interesting that you feel it necessary to be condescending in your post to try to get your point across. So let me clarify...I am not talking about an insignificant O2 covalent bond. I am also not talking about our body BUILDING complex substances that it needs to survive. What our body builds, and the oxygen bonds you speak of, are totally irrelevant to the argument that over time, things move toward chaos and not order.

No, my post was 100% relevant. I'm not sure that you were able to understand my explanation completely, and that might explain why you feel the need to call the post "irrelevant" and call me condescending. Another person actualy PM'd me and told me he liked my response AND added additional examples I could have used too.

The following is the exact line you wrote that I replied to originally: "Where else in science does order come from disorder? I'm supposed to believe that the longer we wait, the more order is restored in the universe? "

And I provided you with a patently obvious example of "where else in science" order comes from disorder. You made an implicit argument that order should not come from disorder, and I disproved your argument. Very simple.

Regarding random genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we can conclude the following: In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics. Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection.

I don' t understand how some of you, who don't understand ANYTHING about science still have the audacity to make blatantly wrong statements and draw amazingly stupid conclusions form them!!!! Random genetic mutations do not cause evolution. Random genetic genetic mutations provide genotypic and therefore phenotypic diversity. Once diversity has been established, natural selection "selects" for organisms with higher survival and reproductive potential. On the other hand, you seem to be implying that random genetic mutations randomly create more orderly species -- this is a GROSS misconception of evolutionary theory. If you wrote that crap on your biology test, the teacher would dock you all your points, photocopy your paper, and pass it around the faculty lounge so everyone else could laugh at it. Seriously.

In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic mutations have created innovative functionality. They have never been observed to create more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms.

Your logical skills need work too. A claim does not necessarily fail because it cannot be demonstrated empirically. This is a very very very poor argument, and I feel like I'm wasting my time on you explaining the most basic things. And you are wrong on the second point -- we have demonstrated evolution at a microscale already. For instance, the emergence of resistance to a particular antibiotic in a Petri plate through random mutation, which eventually changes the structure of the antibiotic binding site so that it doesn't work, and selection for that mutant strain that can survive in that antibiotic. Survival of the fittest and adaptation to environmental changes -- easily observable at that level. EASILY.

The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the consequence of transcriptional errors and random noise corrupting highly coded information. If we took the binary file of Win 2k, and changed random bits in the code, that we would actually at some point get new features? No. Same deal w/ life, except on another level of complexity.

We PROBABLY wouldn't see new features in our Windows 2K code, unless what _________________-
[I'm asking you, because the answer is obvious......]
Answer: [cuz you wouldn't get it anyway] unless we had millions of windows 2k computers that could reproduce their code AND There was a selective pressure against and for certain variations in that code AND we waited a looooooooooong time.
So you example actually supports evolution and demonstrates you ignorance.

Okay, monotony. I've heard better stuff from the local choir. Seriously. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about yet you still wanna argue. Complete waste of time. From now on, unless you have some REALLY good points (that is, ones with non-obvious answers), I will ignore you to respond to Christians with better stuff to offer. Sorry.

Valsalva

Valsalva

 

[DielsAlder]

Monotony probably goes here.

 

[monotony]

Edit: Check out http://www.irc.org

 

[monotony]

Originally posted by: DielsAlder
Monotony probably goes here.

Way to contribute to the thread DielsAlder. I'm sure everyone is now more informed about evolution because of your post.

 

[exp]

Monotony:

You are plagiarizing the work of another individual. Needless to say, such conduct is highly unethical and intellectually dishonest. It has no place on ATOT or anywhere else. In the future either give credit where credit is due or put some thought into writing your own posts.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: exp
Monotony:

You are plagiarizing the work of another individual. Needless to say, such conduct is highly unethical and intellectually dishonest. It has no place on ATOT or anywhere else. In the future either give credit where credit is due or put some thought into writing your own posts.

Whose work is he plagiarizing?

 

[monotony]

Most of the information posted comes from http://www.icr.org I apologize for not posting this earlier, but as soon as I cite the reference, people do not want to listen to the facts. I won't lie, all this research isn't mine. But the facts are still not disputed.

 

[SmackdownHotel]

Originally posted by: Tominator

New lies, old lies, lies are lies and as I've pointed out science lies all the time.

Wrong, you must be thinking of your flawed and backwards religious scriptures.

you and all the scientist on the globe STILL cannot claim that life originated from one or even a hundred creatures.

THAT was the purpose of the theory of evolution in the begining and that has not changed.

Wrong again. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, but the origin of speciation. Again it does not surprise me that you still fail to grasp that simple concept.

You and I do not know how we got here and are really no closer than we were ten years ago or a hundred.

True, but evolution never set out to answer that question anyways, so it's a moot point.

Biblical scolars

An oxymoron.

Science travels blindly on!

Hardly. Keep marching on, Christian soldier and keep listening to your "biblical scholars." LOL, the blind leading the blind.

 

[exp]

Whose work is he plagiarizing?

Unless I'm mistaken, the ultimate source of monotony's posts is a series of essays by one Garth D. Wiebe.

I apologize for not posting this earlier, but as soon as I cite the reference, people do not want to listen to the facts. I won't lie, all this research isn't mine.

Your posts display some small differences from Wiebe's original arguments, suggesting that you changed the wording intentionally. OTOH, perhaps some intermediate is responsible for the alterations. Regardless, you were not merely using Wiebe's work as inspiration for your arguments--they are almost word-for-word identical to the source from which they were stolen. At that point "citing references" would not even be sufficient, you are obligated to use quotations.

Fear of not being taken seriously is not a valid excuse for plagiarism. It is, by definition, inexcusable.

But the facts are still not disputed.

Even if that were true it would not give you the right to pass his writing off as your own. But at any rate there was more than "facts" in that post of yours. The statement that "evolution requires an expanding gene pool", for example, is categorically false. Evolution can occur in a shrinking gene pool. I don't feel like reentering this debate right now so I will stop there. Suffice to say that Wiebe's work is hardly undisputed and on the contrary is chock full of errors. Read it at your own risk.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: monotony
Most of the information posted comes from http://www.icr.org I apologize for not posting this earlier, but as soon as I cite the reference, people do not want to listen to the facts. I won't lie, all this research isn't mine. But the facts are still not disputed.

Monotony, I am absolutely apalled that you PLAGIARIZED another individual's published work. This is the highest level of academic misconduct and there is absolutely ZERO justification for what you did. If you had done this in a university setting, you would have been expelled immediately, and I wish that this forum would do that to you. It is a complete abomination to the academic community when people commit plagiarism, and I will not stand for this. From this point on, I will ignore any further posts from you and act as though you do not exist on this forum. I suggest that others do the same.

This is just another example of Christian hypocrisy...but wait, the Bible doesn't say anything about plagiarism, so I guess it's okay then.

Valsalva

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: monotony

Originally posted by: DielsAlder
Monotony probably goes here.

Way to contribute to the thread DielsAlder. I'm sure everyone is now more informed about evolution because of your post.

At least DielsAlder's contributions are original . . .

Valsalva

 

[Orsorum]

This is just another example of Christian hypocrisy...but wait, the Bible doesn't say anything about plagiarism, so I guess it's okay then.

As a Christian who is interested in this subject, I find that extremely offensive. I admit that I don't have much to add, as I am not a dedicated student of this subject; however, I do find it interesting, edifying, and valuable in my study of my religion and the world around me. Please do not stereotype an entire group of people based on the actions of a few.

 

[Babbles]

I've tried to read the book _Darwin's Black Box_, which was written by a microbiologist. . .

I love how people try to cite that book when arguing against evolutionary theory. The guy that wrote that book has basically been laughed at and ridiculed in many circles. Back a few years ago when I was still an undergrad, he came to our university to talk about his book. The faculty and students just about ripped him a new one. He really just doesn't 'get it'.

Here is an interesting site I found that cites sources reviewing and critising Behe.
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm

One of the things that gets me the most when people try to debunk evolutionary science is how clueless you guys really are. Obviously haven't taken any upper level biology/biochemistry in an university. Maybe took some in biology or some freshman college biology, maybe read a book and think you actually understand it all. Really shows when people throw out the Second Law of Thermodynamics; they read it in some book or some website, think they understand it but obviously just don't get it.

Heck, if you understood it, most of you folks wouldn't be posting half the stuff you do.

If you all think you are just so smart and can defy standing scientific theory, where are your credentials? You folks have the PhD(s) and laboratory experience to disprove what already has been proven?

The audacity that some of you guys and gals display on a messageboard thinking that you have all the answers and science and scientists are for the most part aethists and liars, just making stuff up.
Get a degree(s), do some research then you will have the credentials and experience to make a solid arguement to disprove scientific facts and theories.

 

[JingP]

I think there are two problems that we need to resolve:

1) Does god Exist

2) If not, then why are we here.

I guess this can be answered better if the order was changed. Why are we here? We can all say for certain to be happy, give our future general a better life, but is there an ultimate goal?

We have yet to contrive of such a worthy goal so I am to believe that a higher force does exist, denoted as god.

Assuming that we agree that god(s) do exist, we come to the realization that major religions have conflicting gods...so someone is wrong (most likely everyone).

The concept of religious tolerance is rather amusing to me because alot of people are gonna goto hell for an eternity, i think if intolerence in the present can save these souls, perhaps it not a bad idea.

Anyway, my $.02..., god exists, and there is a purpose to our existance, but we have yet to discover this god. And as our science evolves, we will be able to understand god better. However, this god is probably not any of the god's that most people worship today.

 

[DielsAlder]

Originally posted by: Babbles

I've tried to read the book _Darwin's Black Box_, which was written by a microbiologist. . .

I love how people try to cite that book when arguing against evolutionary theory. The guy that wrote that book has basically been laughed at and ridiculed in many circles. Back a few years ago when I was still an undergrad, he came to our university to talk about his book. The faculty and students just about ripped him a new one. He really just doesn't 'get it'.

Here is an interesting site I found that cites sources reviewing and critising Behe.
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/box/behe.htm

One of the things that gets me the most when people try to debunk evolutionary science is how clueless you guys really are. Obviously haven't taken any upper level biology/biochemistry in an university. Maybe took some in biology or some freshman college biology, maybe read a book and think you actually understand it all. Really shows when people throw out the Second Law of Thermodynamics; they read it in some book or some website, think they understand it but obviously just don't get it.

Heck, if you understood it, most of you folks wouldn't be posting half the stuff you do.

If you all think you are just so smart and can defy standing scientific theory, where are your credentials? You folks have the PhD(s) and laboratory experience to disprove what already has been proven?

The audacity that some of you guys and gals display on a messageboard thinking that you have all the answers and science and scientists are for the most part aethists and liars, just making stuff up.
Get a degree(s), do some research then you will have the credentials and experience to make a solid arguement to disprove scientific facts and theories.

Very well said.

 

[xirtam]

Yes. My credentials and experience will be most valuable in forming the basis of my argumentation.

Wow. You guys are really suckers for our education system.

I can get a degree from the same place I became an ordained minister... just pay my $50 and fill out an online form.

Worthless. Judge the effectiveness of the argumentation, people. All I see is ad hominem and scarecrow arguments. Do us all a favor and post something worthwhile. It's just flamebait.

Of course, if I followed my own advice and posted evidence of any type, people would start bashing me because I don't have a piece of paper that says I'm a Ph.D.

DOH!

Valsalva, you've posted some worthwhile stuff. But that was a low blow. So he plagiarized. Should be all the easier to draw him out of his unoriginal arguments and thrash him since he "obviously" doesn't understand the arguments.

I should start a thread on intellectual property. Who actually "owns" a thought?

Rahvin, because of the fact that your sig seems to be a consensus on this board, I take my leave. If anyone wants to have a logical conversation, you have my name. My PM is available. You can probably even find my email address. But until then, enjoy neffing, because none of you are getting to any kind of conclusion with this train of thought.

 

[exp]

I should start a thread on intellectual property. Who actually "owns" a thought?

:| I assume that you did not see monotony's post before it was deleted. I did, and I can assure you that it was copied almost word-for-word from another individual. You can debate "who actually 'owns' a thought" all you like--there is no excuse for plagiarism. Period.

As tempting as it may be for you to defend monotony because he happens to be on the same side as you, don't do it. You will only smear your own reputation in the process. Those who support plagiarism are no better than the offenders themselves.

 

[xirtam]

Did I mention monotony? I don't believe I did. I'm actually stating that people who only plagiarize material should be easy to hammer with logical arguments. Attack the arguments, and if they've plagiarized arguments without understanding them (for for what other reason would you need to plagiarize...) then they're idiocy will be made apparent.

And if he can back up the argumentation well, I'm sure he would be a credit to the organization who came up with the argumentation. Name-calling is still inappropriate. This is not a university. It's not like you're going to give him a virtual slap-on-the-wrist or ban him from Anandtech.

The fact remains -- you're still not getting anywhere with the thread topic. I suppose that's why the call it "Off Topic," eh? We can fight over plagiarism and call people names because they don't have degrees in a thread entitled "Creation Science."

Man, I'm slow tonight.

 

[exp]

This:

I'm actually stating that people who only plagiarize material should be easy to hammer with logical arguments.

clearly follows from most of your post but it does not follow from this:

I should start a thread on intellectual property. Who actually "owns" a thought?

The implication of this second statement of yours (actually first chronologically) is that plagiarism is no big deal. This is reinforced by your cursory dismissal of monotony's transgression with the phrase "So he plagiarized."

What exactly was the point of your comment on intellectual property, if not to suggest that plagiarism can be justified? I seek clarification of your intent, that is all.