|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/18/2008 2:37:50 PM
|
|
|
tbull97580
Posts: 16
Joined: 7/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I believe some here would say that a transitional form would be a fish with legs that had a fossilized genealogy chart clutched in its little bony almost-hands, tracing its lineage back to ancestors without legs.
I nearly fell out of my chair laughing at that one.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/20/2008 4:44:56 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
But claiming that there is undiscovered evidence of the past event is.
Evolution does not predict what we should find. It just interprets whatever evidence is found as evidence for evolution, which means it's not making any predictions whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/20/2008 4:47:23 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Of course not. The prediction applies above the level of species, not within species.
Again, if evolution does not produce a hierarchy within a species, there is no reason for it to produce one above this level.
quote:
The hierarchy is produced because there is no way for horizontal transfer of DNA between species.
Evolution is never shown to produce any such alleged hierarchy, you are merely claiming that this hierarchy exists and then speculating that evolution should produce it. I already gave examples of where violations could occur even above the specie level in other threads and you know this.
quote:
Please show me how the mechanisms of evolution could transfer the genes for feathers from birds to bats. If no such evolutionary mechanism exists then a nested hierarchy is expected and predicted.
Please show me how the mechanisms of evolution could create the flagellum. Show me this in a lab (and by evolution, I don't mean design). You have no idea how the mechanisms of evolution allegedly work to allegedly create things like feathers and the flagellum so even if your alleged hierarchy were objective and there does exist violations, lack of mechanism is not a problem. The problem here is that you can't even show evolution creating feathers to begin with. It's not for me to prove that evolution could plausibly produce feathers, you're the one claiming it can and I say it can't, if you want to claim that evolution can plausibly produce feathers the burden is on you. The problem here is that you're assuming evolution produced the feathers to begin with, please substantiate. Show me in a lab evolution producing new feathers.
Again, it's not a matter of being able to "transfer" the genes for feathers from birds to bats. If bats had feathers, one can claim that they diverged earlier in the alleged evolutionary tree, that they share a common ancestor with feathers but then they branched off and changed from each other (and that they continued to share the genes for feathers). Or, one can claim they independently evolved them using similar genes that were shared by a common ancestor. Lack of mechanism has never been a problem in the past, so it shouldn't be a problem here either. Evolution does not predict anything.
Of course, you already knew that evolution could account for alleged hierarchy violations. I don't know why you keep on bringing up arguments that you know are false. There is no reason for this alleged hierarchy to be expected or predicted (I guess it's because you have no choice. You don't have any valid arguments, so you must bring up false ones).
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/20/2008 6:01:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/20/2008 4:54:13 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
That is true. There is no conscious effort to make a nested hierarchy. Natural selection does not care to produce a nested hierarchy. Nevertheless we get a nested hierarchy. This is due to the mechanisms of inheritance and the obstruction of gene flow between species. It works automatically without conscious effort.
The problem here is that you are assuming evolution to be true. There is no reason for the alleged mechanisms of evolution to produce any such hierarchy and it shouldn't.
Beyond speculation, you don't even know the alleged mechanisms that allegedly produce new wings, flagella, organs, organ systems, body plans, appendages, etc... or the DNA for them, so how are you to know what sort of pattern it should produce? You just think you see some hierarchy and claim that evolution somehow should predict this when there really is no reason for it to.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/20/2008 6:08:50 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/20/2008 4:57:50 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
You prove my point more every day. If the theory of evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy then why is this concept applied in the fields of comparative genomics and phylogenomics? Why do scientists expect to see a nested hierarchy due to evolution if it is not a prediction of evolution?
So the best argument you can come up with for the notion that evolution somehow predicts this alleged nested hierarchy is that other people claim that it should? It's no wonder evolution requires tax dollars and the censorship of criticisms and opposing views just to survive.
It's not that "scientists" need evolution to be able to expect this alleged hierarchy. If this hierarchy does exist, scientists can expect it based on past observations. They observe past organisms, notice they fit this alleged hierarchy, and based on this they can predict that future observations should fit this alleged hierarchy (this is assuming the hierarchy is somehow an objective construct). If I throw a ball in the air 10 times and it comes back down each time, I can predict that it would come back down if I threw it up in the air in the future. Cosmic evolution is not required for this.
quote:
Due to HGT. There is no HGT between metazoan species.
I already refuted this on other threads several times. You know this.. You even admit that evolution could account for nested hierarchy violations (assuming this alleged hierarchy is not just a subjective construct). If this alleged hierarchy is somehow an objective construct, there is no reason for evolution not to produce many violations. There are many possibilities for violations even when the organisms speciate. You only claim such possibilities are rare based on your assumption that evolution is true.
It seems like the secular community is starting to acknowledge that this alleged hierarchy is arbitrary and isn't really evidence for UCD.
quote:
According to Popper, the falsifiability of a hypothesis represents a necessary precondition for its corroborability. It is shown that cladograms, independent of ‘‘strict’’, ‘‘methodological’’ or ‘‘sophisticated’’ falsification, are not falsifiable in principle. No present observation is prohibited by any tree hypothesis and, thus, no Popperian test of cladograms exists.
The unfalsifiability of cladograms and its consequences
You already know this. I guess the problem is that there is no evidence for UCD so you must continue claiming that something is evidence for UCD despite the fact that you know it's already been refuted as such.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/20/2008 5:23:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/21/2008 1:32:58 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: online
|
Considering that the Darwinists here have given an admission that no proof of transitionals is possible I think the conclusions are all too obvious.
Go ahead continuing the diatribe about me not understanding science. That's the lamest response yet and usually turns up when the Darwinist knows he's lost his argument but is too proud to admit it. I'm sorry to say you do not understand the laws of evidence and proof.
'No proof exists in science' is utter nonsense. And the no proof the the apple will not float up is either incredulity at the unchanging laws of nature or failing to understand the irrelevance of such a statement. Suppose your apple did 'float up'? What then? You'd be obliged by the known facts of gravity to search for an adequate cause that fits with those known facts.
You would not suppose those facts to be wrong. You would rather seek the cause of such an interruption of the norm - like earth losing it's mass or you being stuck in some other caused field of force or whatever.
And it is not I who intriduced the 'gaps in the fossil record' but the Darwinists I quoted.
If macro-evolution were true there should be millions upon millions of known established links between all major species. There are not - just a few scattered & speculated ones - and that after 150 years of searching.
Age, morphology and location are nothing more than circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted a vasty different ways as I pointed out.
Darwinists, in admitting that no step by step mutational, selection evidence can be given in the very nature of the case are admitting exactly what Schwartz says, "The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely...." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
As for the "great success of evolutionary theory" I find that laughable with regards to frog to prince macro-evo.
What success? The only success it has had at all is with regards to micro-evolution. And even there it has proven wrong so many times. Extrapolating micro into macro is not science - just conjecture based on wishful thinking. There are clear delianated limits to what micro can do. Moreover, a great number of biologists admit or know they don't need Darwin at all in the lab.
Malaria has had more reproductive events every year for the last 100,000 years than mammals have had in their entire existance, yet viruses have been kind enough to give mammals the genes to become sonar flying bats that eat upside down, great singing whales and computer manufacturing humans while malaria is still a life sucking plasmodium that can’t reproduce below 60 degrees farenheit and requires a host to survive.
As an informatics scientist I'm glad we have tons of proof for what we do every day and can predict reliably what systems will in fact do without a foolish supposition that maybe next time it won't work that way because 'no proof exists in [that] science'. 
And while some today say that math is not a true science (off topic anyway), those efforts are of no use to science. Gauss referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences". Karl Popper said, "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently" "In the original Latin Regina Scientiarum, as well as in German Königin der Wissenschaften, the word corresponding to science means (field of) knowledge. Indeed, this is also the original meaning in English, and there is no doubt that mathematics is in this sense a science." Benjamin Peirce called it "the science that draws necessary conclusions". wikipedia
Whatever, believe math is no science if you please. Your definition of science is too limited.
Have blind faith in transitionals if you please but I'm glad we can agree there is no proof of it - only speculation - and a humungous and therefore conspicuous absence of transitionals in the record. You may call these gaps. I call them glaring evidence of the falsity of macro-evo - the materialist origins myth.
One last question (I'll not be answering any further here- my point is proven) but:
What if the universe and biological life are truly designed by an alien, metaphysical or supernatural intelligent agent?
Using your definition of science, could you discover that?
Obviously the current methodological reductionism could not. Thus the conclusions on that definition should be obvious.
Thanks
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/21/2008 2:14:04 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1083
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
'No proof exists in science' is utter nonsense.
I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the case. If Copernicus proved that the planets revolved around the sun in circular orbits, that would be a terrible thing, because later Kepler proved that their orbits were non-circular. If you can prove contradictory things with the same method, then your method is useless.
If it will make you happier, then science has proved that the earth is old. Case closed. You can't argue with proof.
quote:
One last question (I'll not be answering any further here- my point is proven) but:
What if the universe and biological life are truly designed by an alien, metaphysical or supernatural intelligent agent?
Using your definition of science, could you discover that?
Obviously the current methodological reductionism could not.
In some cases, this would be possible to discover. If all life on earth shared a highly conserved non-coding sequence of DNA that (in base four) represented the first 10,000 digits of pi, this would be strong evidence in favor of artificial tinkering.
If the stars in the sky were arranged in a big Kilroy-was-here symbol, this would be strong evidence in favor of artificial tinkering.
If the surface of the earth were divided into a rectilinear 'checkerboard' of water and land aligned with the lines of longitude and lattitude, this would be strong evidence in favor of artificial tinkering.
If every diamond had a colored inclusion that resembled ET, this would be strong evidence in favor of artificial tinkering.
But we don't live in any of those universes. Our hypotethical designers have been too subtle to leave any unambiguous evidence of their tinkering.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/21/2008 2:26:35 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Evolution does not predict what we should find. It just interprets whatever evidence is found as evidence for evolution, which means it's not making any predictions whatsoever.
Then how can creationists claim that there are gaps in the fossil record? In order to have gaps you need a predicted transitional, do you not?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/21/2008 2:29:54 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, if evolution does not produce a hierarchy within a species, there is no reason for it to produce one above this level.
And again, you are wrong. A nested hierarchy is unavoidable when a population splits into two new populations that do not interbreed. An individual is not a population.
If you don't believe me, then please show how mutations can be traded between populations that do not interbreed.
quote:
Evolution is never shown to produce any such alleged hierarchy, you are merely claiming that this hierarchy exists and then speculating that evolution should produce it. I already gave examples of where violations could occur even above the specie level in other threads and you know this.
Your model requires humans to reproduce asexually.
quote:
Please show me how the mechanisms of evolution could create the flagellum.
This has nothing to do with a nested hierarchy. Please show me how genes for feathers can be moved from birds into mammals.
quote:
Again, it's not a matter of being able to "transfer" the genes for feathers from birds to bats.
Where the nested hierarchy is concerned, yes it is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/21/2008 11:29:57 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Considering that the Darwinists here have given an admission that no proof of transitionals is possible I think the conclusions are all too obvious.
We have offered several examples of transitional fossils which are EVIDENCE for the theory of evolution. Can you explain why transitional fossils are not evidence, and why creationists think "gaps in the fossil record" is such a problem for the theory if those same fossils are not evidence?
quote:
Go ahead continuing the diatribe about me not understanding science. That's the lamest response yet and usually turns up when the Darwinist knows he's lost his argument but is too proud to admit it. I'm sorry to say you do not understand the laws of evidence and proof.
What is the difference between proof and evidence? Do you know the difference?
quote:
'No proof exists in science' is utter nonsense.
Then give us one scientific theory that is absolutely proven.
quote:
And it is not I who intriduced the 'gaps in the fossil record' but the Darwinists I quoted.
And some of those same scientists cite fossils that fill those gaps which you then reject. Either they are an authority or they are not. Make up your mind.
quote:
If macro-evolution were true there should be millions upon millions of known established links between all major species. There are not - just a few scattered & speculated ones - and that after 150 years of searching.
Do you have evidence that there were not millions upon millions of transitional species? Do you think these recently found fossils existed for a couple months in the recent past and went extinct without ever being discovered only to leave 2 or 3 fossils? Why hasn't anyone found a single passenger pigeon fossil given the fact that they once numbered in the billions? Do you really think scientists have found every single fossil that exists?
quote:
Age, morphology and location are nothing more than circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted a vasty different ways as I pointed out.
The age, morphology, and location is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. What criteria do you use, other than these, to judge whether or not a fossil is intermediate?
quote:
Darwinists, in admitting that no step by step mutational, selection evidence can be given in the very nature of the case are admitting exactly what Schwartz says, "The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely...." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
I completely agree with Schwartz. This is true of every theory in science.
quote:
As for the "great success of evolutionary theory" I find that laughable with regards to frog to prince macro-evo.
What success?
Thousands of biologists are not laughing along with you. They are too busy applying the theory, successfully, in the fields of phylogenomics and comparative genomics. They might be laughing at creationists, but they aren't laughing at the theory.
Here is an abstract which outlines the success of the applied theory of evolution:
quote:
PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.
Engelhardt BE, Jordan MI, Muratore KE, Brenner SE.
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, California, United States of America. bee@cs.berkeley.edu
We present a statistical graphical model to infer specific molecular function for unannotated protein sequences using homology. Based on phylogenomic principles, SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) accurately predicts molecular function for members of a protein family given a reconciled phylogeny and available function annotations, even when the data are sparse or noisy. Our method produced specific and consistent molecular function predictions across 100 Pfam families in comparison to the Gene Ontology annotation database, BLAST, GOtcha, and Orthostrapper. We performed a more detailed exploration of functional predictions on the adenosine-5'-monophosphate/adenosine deaminase family and the lactate/malate dehydrogenase family, in the former case comparing the predictions against a gold standard set of published functional characterizations. Given function annotations for 3% of the proteins in the deaminase family, SIFTER achieves 96% accuracy in predicting molecular function for experimentally characterized proteins as reported in the literature. The accuracy of SIFTER on this dataset is a significant improvement over other currently available methods such as BLAST (75%), GeneQuiz (64%), GOtcha (89%), and Orthostrapper (11%). We also experimentally characterized the adenosine deaminase from Plasmodium falciparum, confirming SIFTER's prediction. The results illustrate the predictive power of exploiting a statistical model of function evolution in phylogenomic problems. A software implementation of SIFTER is available from the authors.
Using the theory of evolution they are able to predict protein funciton with 96% accuracy.
quote:
Malaria has had more reproductive events every year for the last 100,000 years than mammals have had in their entire existance, yet viruses have been kind enough to give mammals the genes to become sonar flying bats that eat upside down, great singing whales and computer manufacturing humans while malaria is still a life sucking plasmodium that can’t reproduce below 60 degrees farenheit and requires a host to survive.
Why should the plasmodium evolve given their great success?
quote:
As an informatics scientist I'm glad we have tons of proof for what we do every day and can predict reliably what systems will in fact do without a foolish supposition that maybe next time it won't work that way because 'no proof exists in [that] science'.
Then how do you explain how the intersectionof informatics and evolutionary sciences are able to predict protein function with 96% accuracy?
quote:
Have blind faith in transitionals if you please but I'm glad we can agree there is no proof of it - only speculation - and a humungous and therefore conspicuous absence of transitionals in the record.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LACK OF TRANSITIONALS IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A TRANSITIONAL IS?
quote:
You may call these gaps. I call them glaring evidence of the falsity of macro-evo - the materialist origins myth.
How are transitionals evidence against the theory? By what criteria do you reject these transitionals?
quote:
What if the universe and biological life are truly designed by an alien, metaphysical or supernatural intelligent agent?
Using your definition of science, could you discover that?
There is life that is designed. The Glofish is a great example. This fish has an exact copy of a jellyfish gene, the green fluorescent protein. This causes them to glow under a UV light. This is a clear and easily identifiable violation of the twin nested hierarchies just as we would expect from an intelligent designer but not from evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 1:00:53 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Then how can creationists claim that there are gaps in the fossil record? In order to have gaps you need a predicted transitional, do you not?
Evolution doesn't predict that we should find transitionals. Darwin himself admit this much, attributing the lack of transitionals to the alleged incomplete nature of the geologic record. Evolution doesn't predict anything.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/22/2008 1:07:19 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 1:04:09 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1359
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
And again, you are wrong. A nested hierarchy is unavoidable when a population splits into two new populations that do not interbreed. An individual is not a population.
This isn't true. There already exists violations within the population and those violations don't just disappear if the population speciates.
quote:
If you don't believe me, then please show how mutations can be traded between populations that do not interbreed.
Again, the violations are already there before the specie speciates, and those violations don't just disappear after it does.
quote:
Your model requires humans to reproduce asexually.
No it does not. Even within the human population, which reproduce sexually, there are many violations. Those violations don't just disappear if the specie speciates, they remain.
quote:
This has nothing to do with a nested hierarchy. Please show me how genes for feathers can be moved from birds into mammals.
Again, the violations already exist before the specie speciates and there is no reason for them to disappear after it does.
quote:
quote:
Again, it's not a matter of being able to "transfer" the genes for feathers from birds to bats.
Where the nested hierarchy is concerned, yes it is.
Already shown to be false. I already explained why this is false, but you keep insisting that your proclamations somehow refute good reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 2:11:54 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Then how can creationists claim that there are gaps in the fossil record? In order to have gaps you need a predicted transitional, do you not?
Evolution doesn't predict that we should find transitionals. Darwin himself admit this much, attributing the lack of transitionals to the alleged incomplete nature of the geologic record. Evolution doesn't predict anything.
Indeed, it doesn't predict that we should find transitionals. It does predict that there must be transitionals. And that if we look for them we may find them. It also predicts with some accuracy which sorts of transitionals we will find, which we will not find and in which strata certain transitionals will be found.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 10:55:03 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Evolution doesn't predict that we should find transitionals. Darwin himself admit this much, attributing the lack of transitionals to the alleged incomplete nature of the geologic record. Evolution doesn't predict anything.
But how do you know that there are gaps in an evolutionary transition?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 10:58:20 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
This isn't true. There already exists violations within the population and those violations don't just disappear if the population speciates.
One can not have violations of a nested hierarchy with just one interbreeding population. In order to have a nested hierarchy you need two or more non-interbreeding populations.
quote:
Again, the violations are already there before the specie speciates, and those violations don't just disappear after it does.
No, they are not. Alleles are found in both populations prior to divergence.
quote:
No it does not. Even within the human population, which reproduce sexually, there are many violations. Those violations don't just disappear if the specie speciates, they remain.
I wasn't aware that there were two human species living today. Care to explain?
quote:
Already shown to be false. I already explained why this is false, but you keep insisting that your proclamations somehow refute good reasoning.
"Violations of the nested hierarchy within the species" makes no sense. It is an oxymoron. The nested hierarchy describes the relationship between SPECIES, not between individuals within a species.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 12:33:46 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's the case. Sorry but no it isn't.
Copernicus could not have proved that the planets revolved around the sun in circular orbits, because they do not.
You cannot prove - demonstrate without reasonable doubt - a falshood. It's like trying to prove 1+1 is not = to 2. Can't be done. It is a logical absurdity to claim one might prove the truth of a falsehood. Think about it.
quote:
If it will make you happier, then science has proved that the earth is old. Case closed. You can't argue with proof. So you now admit science is able to prove something then!! Yes, when it serves your purpose! Hanging on to your materialist world-view at all costs.
So what if earth is old.
quote:
In some cases, this would be possible to discover. If all life on earth shared a highly conserved non-coding sequence of DNA that (in base four) represented the first 10,000 digits of pi, this would be strong evidence in favor of artificial tinkering. This is asking for ludicrous amounts of evidence where no such nonsense is required. DNA already carries the finger prints of vast intelligence - since we already know that only intelligence can produce coded information - so do the laws of physics. quote:
Information theory is a special branch of mathematics that has developed a way to measure information. In brief, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions required to describe or specify it, whether that structure is a rock or a rocket ship, a pile of leaves or a living organism. The more complex a structure is, the more instructions are needed to describe it.
...
A structural identity has been discovered between the genetic messages on DNA and the written messages of a human language. This discovery opened the way for the application of information theory to biology. Information theory applies to any symbol system, regardless of the elements of that system. The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally well to human language, Morse code, and the genetic code. Hubert P. Yockey notes in the Journal of Theoretical Biology:
It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis [that the exact order of symbols records the information] applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.
There is an identity of structure between DNA (and protein) and written linguistic messages. Since we know by experience that intelligence produces written messages, and no other cause is known, the implication, according to the abductive method, is that intelligent cause produced DNA and protein. The significance of this result lies in the security of it, for it is much stronger than if the structures were merely similar. We are not dealing with anything like a superficial resemblance between DNA and a written text. We are not saying DNA is like a message. Rather, DNA is a message. True design thus returns to biology. - Charles Thaxton, A New Design Argument 1998 Denial is all Darwinists are able to offer to this.
I'm not going to get into an argument over the nature of information as this thread is about transitionals. Suggest you look here for a simple overview : Nevertheless, the very fact that new companies are sprouting up whose services are exactly based on ID theory. http://www.genetic-id.com/ is an example. Another place is http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/9/260
If design were not detectable in biological systems these could not exist. Even Venter's manipulations of DNA - by inserting a genetic signature - are detectable.
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." - F. Crick
Gee, I wonder why he had to say that? Pretty obvious. Same obvious reasons Dawkins invented designoids.
Darwinists are tenaciously and ferociously fighting a losing battle. Information theory and good old logic will prevail in the end.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 1:00:31 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 159
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
We have offered several examples of transitional fossils which are EVIDENCE for the theory of evolution. You have offered a single supposed transitional which you yourselves claim cannot be proven. Pretty amazing logic there.
quote:
Then give us one scientific theory that is absolutely proven. How about the age of the earth (as per essential) ?! You can't get anywhere with these types of arguments. Sorry. If nothing can be proven, nothing can be argued either.
quote:
Do you have evidence that there were not millions upon millions of transitional species? The fossil record. The gaps are mostly gone - the links remain... missing.
Are you now claiming that there should be millions of links but aren't?
quote:
The age, morphology, and location is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Wrong - you conflate empirical without circumstantial. A whole different ball game. Again, claiming something is a transitional does not make it so.
quote:
Darwinists, in admitting that no step by step mutational, selection evidence can be given in the very nature of the case are admitting exactly what Schwartz says, "The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely...." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
quote:
I completely agree with Schwartz. In that case what are you trying to prove!?! Sheesh.
quote:
This is true of every theory in science. Wrong. It's pretty obvious that Schwartz is lamenting a lack in the theory. A hypothesis is not a theory. So Darwinism doesn't even qualify as a valid theory - just speculative hypothesis.
quote:
Thousands of biologists are not laughing along with you. They are too busy applying the theory, successfully, in the fields of phylogenomics and comparative genomics. They might be laughing at creationists, but they aren't laughing at the theory. Actually evo theory is not even needed to do biology. Learn your facts kid.
Here is an abstract which outlines the success of the applied theory of evolution:
quote:
PLoS Comput Biol. 2005 Oct;1(5):e45. Epub 2005 Oct 7.
Protein molecular function prediction by Bayesian phylogenomics.
quote:
Using the theory of evolution they are able to predict protein funciton with 96% accuracy. I already quoted this same article elsewhere. What it actually proves is that intelligently designed software can analyse the genome quite effectively. You left out this part: quote:
A major question in developmental biology is, How do cells know where they are in the body? For example, skin cells on the scalp know to produce hair, and the skin cells on the palms of the hand know not to make hair. Overall, there are thousands of different cell types and each has a unique job that is important to overall organ function. It is critical that, as we grow and develop, each of these different cells passes on the proper function from generation to generation to maintain organ function. In this study, the authors present a model that explains how cells know where they are in the body. By comparing cells from 43 unique positions that finely map the entire human body, the authors discovered that cells utilize a ZIP-code system to identify the cell's position in the human body. The ZIP code for Stanford is 94305, and each digit hones in on the location of a place in the United States; similarly, cells know their location by using a code of genes. For example, a cell on the hand expresses a set of genes that locate the cell on the top half of the body (anterior) and another set of genes that locates the cell as being far away from the body or distal and a third set of genes that identifies the cell on the outside of the body (not internal). Thus, each set of genes narrows in on the cell's location, just like a ZIP code. These findings have important implications for the etiology of many diseases, wound healing, and tissue engineering. So how is it that rm + ns pulled this off? Yet another code found in DNA.
quote:
Why should the plasmodium evolve given their great success? Indeed why should any successful organism evolve? Including the very first?
quote:
How are transitionals evidence against the theory? Say what? Never said that.
quote:
By what criteria do you reject these transitionals? By your own. No proof exists right? So... do the math. And, by simple logic - the undistributed middle fallacy is at work in the transitional claim. You have to assume it's true to claim it's true. 'Like this therefore from this'. Easy to see the fault.
Add those 2 together and 99% of your transitionals become wishful thinking transitionals. Nuff said.
_____________________________
"The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order." Sir F. Hoyle
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 1:02:30 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
You cannot prove - demonstrate without reasonable doubt - a falshood. It's like trying to prove 1+1 is not = to 2. Can't be done. It is a logical absurdity to claim one might prove the truth of a falsehood. Think about it.
In order to prove a scientific theory you need absolute knowledge of every occurence in the universe (past, present, and future). How do you propose doing that?
quote:
Information theory is a special branch of mathematics that has developed a way to measure information.
We are talking about biology, not mathematics. We are also talking about transitional fossils. If you want to speak about information theory as it relates to fossils then please show how it specifically applies. You also need to specify the type of information that you are using (e.g., Shannon, Kalmogorov-Chaitin).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 1:17:04 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 864
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
You have offered a single supposed transitional which you yourselves claim cannot be proven. Pretty amazing logic there.
Proof is for mathematics and distillation. T. rosae is EVIDENCE of the transition between lobe finned fish and tetrapods. Do you agree or not?
quote:
How about the age of the earth (as per essential) ?! You can't get anywhere with these types of arguments. Sorry. If nothing can be proven, nothing can be argued either.
Then you don't accept gravity, the germ theory of disease, or atomic theory? None of these have been proven.
quote:
quote:
Do you have evidence that there were not millions upon millions of transitional species? The fossil record. The gaps are mostly gone - the links remain... missing.
Are you now claiming that there should be millions of links but aren't?
How did you conclude that these fossils will not be found given the fact that new transitionals are found on a monthly basis?
quote:
quote:
The age, morphology, and location is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Wrong - you conflate empirical without circumstantial. A whole different ball game. Again, claiming something is a transitional does not make it so.
Then what evidence do you need in order to conclude that a fossil is transitional? You can not claim that something is missing if you can't even recognize it.
quote:
In that case what are you trying to prove!?! Sheesh.
I am not trying to prove anything. I am trying to show that the evidence is consistent with the theory of evolution including the fossil record.
quote:
Wrong. It's pretty obvious that Schwartz is lamenting a lack in the theory. A hypothesis is not a theory. So Darwinism doesn't even qualify as a valid theory - just speculative hypothesis.
Theories produce testable hypotheses. Once these hypotheses are tested and pass the theory is considered to be tentatively true. This process is called science.
Can you name one theory that is proven?
quote:
Actually evo theory is not even needed to do biology. Learn your facts kid.
How can you say that given the fact that evolution is being used?
quote:
I already quoted this same article elsewhere. What it actually proves is that intelligently designed software can analyse the genome quite effectively.
And that software directly applies the theory of evolution. What do you think a phylogeny is?
quote:
You left out this part: quote:
A major question in developmental biology is, How do cells know where they are in the body? For example, skin cells on the scalp know to produce hair, and the skin cells on the palms of the hand know not to make hair. Overall, there are thousands of different cell types and each has a unique job that is important to overall organ function. It is critical that, as we grow and develop, each of these different cells passes on the proper function from generation to generation to maintain organ function. In this study, the authors present a model that explains how cells know where they are in the body. By comparing cells from 43 unique positions that finely map the entire human body, the authors discovered that cells utilize a ZIP-code system to identify the cell's position in the human body. The ZIP code for Stanford is 94305, and each digit hones in on the location of a place in the United States; similarly, cells know their location by using a code of genes. For example, a cell on the hand expresses a set of genes that locate the cell on the top half of the body (anterior) and another set of genes that locates the cell as being far away from the body or distal and a third set of genes that identifies the cell on the outside of the body (not internal). Thus, each set of genes narrows in on the cell's location, just like a ZIP code. These findings have important implications for the etiology of many diseases, wound healing, and tissue engineering. So how is it that rm + ns pulled this off? Yet another code found in DNA.
If DNA is a code then the Sun is a clock. Until you understand that this conversation will not go far. How does rm + ns pull this off? Don't know, but that is exactly what scientists are researching right now in the field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, aka Evo-Devo. Guess what theory they apply in their work?
quote:
Including the very first?
If there are empty niches that the organism can evolve into then this will happen due to the fact that it reduces competition.
quote:
Say what? Never said that.
Then why are gaps in the fossil record evidence against the theory, but when these transitionals are found they are not evidence for the theory?
quote:
By your own. No proof exists right?
But evidence does exist: the transitional fossils. Are transitional fossils evidence or not?
quote:
And, by simple logic - the undistributed middle fallacy is at work in the transitional claim. You have to assume it's true to claim it's true. 'Like this therefore from this'. Easy to see the fault.
Don't you have to assume the very same things to claim that there are gaps in the fossil record?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 2:26:33 PM
|
|
|
RCC
Posts: 80
Joined: 10/6/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
Then give us one scientific theory that is absolutely proven. How about the age of the earth (as per essential) ?! You can't get anywhere with these types of arguments. Sorry. If nothing can be proven, nothing can be argued either.
This business about “proof” in science comes up frequently. Part of the problem is that the word “proof” is used in different senses:
(1) Proof in the mathematical/logical sense. In this sense, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved (from Euclid’s axioms), but it cannot be proved that the Earth is round. Proof in this sense applies strictly to logical and mathematical axiomatic systems.
(2) Proof in the sense of “demonstration beyond reasonable doubt.” In this sense, it has been proved that the Earth is round and that all life on Earth is descended from one or a few common ancestors.
Evolution (in this sense of common descent) is regarded as an established, “proven” scientific theory for the same reasons that all other accepted and established scientific theories (e.g., round-Earth, atomic theory of matter, plate tectonics, quantum electrodynamics) are regarded as accepted and established. Namely, these theories fulfill each of the following conditions:
1. They have tremendous explanatory power. It is the business of scientific theories to offer naturalistic explanations of observed phenomena. Evolution explains a vast and growing number of observations. If it explained only half a dozen observations, it wouldn’t be worth taking seriously, but in fact it explains thousands upon thousands of observations.
2. There are no competing scientific theories that have similar explanatory power in explaining these observations.
3. They do not conflict with the rest of our scientific knowledge. Evolution harmonizes with our knowledge of geology, astronomy, chemistry, etc.
_____________________________
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Transitional Fossils - 7/22/2008 4:53:57 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
For those of you who do not want to read my lenghty post above perhaps you could answer one simple question.
If a fish with legs is not a transitional form between fish and tetrapods then what would a real transitional look like?
Considering the fact that the Catholic church stands by its 15th century decision to classify the Capybara as a fish, I don't think it's hard to see how little interest the creationist world has in "transitional forms". Many creationists find the whole of science, especially such fields as evolutionary biology, to contradict with their faith and thusly declare anyone who would pursue science to be "out to destroy their faith" or "disprove God". But when George Lamaitre was peddling his "big bang" notion in the 1920s and being shunned by the rest of the scientific community, the pope haled his "theory" as undeniable proof of Genesis. Proving once again that creationists love science just so long as it's got their back. With prejudices such as this, it's no wonder they are literally incapable of simply seeing things as they are.
Method, your question is about as loaded as they come, but I find it telling of exactly what you surely intended it to be telling of that 125 posts into it you do not have a sufficient answer.
Catholic "lent" fish, look it's swimming, must be a fish, let's eat that on lent fridays.:
[image]
http://www.hedweb.com/animimag/capybara.jpg[/image]
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/22/2008 5:02:30 PM >
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
