• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

Bad vibe said:
I made what I considered to be a logical assumption with little to no real knowledge of genetics after reading a little of what is a dauntingly complex science I realise the arguement you present simply does not fit the data you claim
Click to expand...

How does it not fit the data?

Just saying it does not is not an argument.
 
randman said:
Then complain about it with a paper. Otherwise, your protests are weak, and for the record I am using exactly as it is used in peer-reviewed published papers. If you don't like the way science uses the term, don't blame me.
Click to expand...

Ok; let me try to explain this to you...

The expression 'genetically complex' is being used but it is an expression that has no fixed definition.
For example, expression like: 'statistically significant' or words like 'homologous' have very strict, well understood definitions.

Others have no such firm definition. 'genetically complex' is such an expression, you can use it to compare two genes or set of genes and show that one is more complex than the other, but it has no strict definition and its meaning change with the context you use it.
That doesn't preclude scientists to use this series of word, but it means different thing, the level of complexity it refers to changes each time it is used.

It's a bit like the word 'big'. It is regularly used in papers. But depending if you are reading a genetic; a microbiology or an astronomical paper, what they mean by 'big' differs quite a bit.

So, basing you argument on the word "big" would be silly, especially as many people have been patiently explaining through many pages how the evolutionary theory does not predict that more primitive organisms will always have simple genomes.
 
randman said:
Yes, it does. So does the paper I linked to.
Click to expand...

The first article, Reef Relations DNA shared by people and coral sheds light on animal evolution only mentions gene 'function', and only uses 'complex' about the human nervous system.

The second article you linked to, about which I commented, is EST Analysis of the Cnidarian Acropora millepora Reveals Extensive Gene Loss and Rapid Sequence Divergence in the Model Invertebrates.

Nowhere in that paper does it mention "complex nerve" "complex nerve function", or even "nerve function" - it only uses "function" in the context of genes, and 'complex' in the context of morphology and genetics.

If I have missed a link you posted to an article that does mention 'complex nerve function' or something similar, please quote it or post it again. If not, you are either terminally confused, or lying.
 
The current evidence suggests that the LCMA's genome would be more complex than we previously thought, because many traits which we previously thought arose with vertebrates now appear to have predated them
Click to expand...
.

That's where you are wrong. There are not new traits. There are genes they didn't expect to be there.

Why is that?

Why were they "surprised" in the coral study, for example?
 
randman said:
So is this par for the course here? You guys just come on and say very little science and data-wise but lambast how the critic doesn't understand evolution?

Sceptic, back up your point. Name one area I haven't "understood"?

You guys reminded me about debating some folks 15 or more years ago that insisted since simple organisms have simple genomes, that it was evidence for evolution and a prediction of evolution. Maybe some of you recall that being the evo spin? Now, we know that's wrong, and I think there was evidence even then but evos still went around saying it. So what's the spin now? That NeoDarwinism predicted this all along?
Click to expand...

Your god seems to be limited by the size of your mind.
 
I'm not familiar with papers published by "the front loaders," or where these predictions were made.
Click to expand...

John Davison has a paper that also cites a lot of other prominent scientists that went before him. Google John Davison and you can read up on the topic.
 
randman said:
Your argument from authority holds no water and so don't wish to waste time on it.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? You're the one who chose to cite a name, calling him a great scientist, without presenting his argument. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?
 
Simon39759 said:
Ok; let me try to explain this to you...

The expression 'genetically complex' is being used but it is an expression that has no fixed definition.
For example, expression like: 'statistically significant' or words like 'homologous' have very strict, well understood definitions.

Others have no such firm definition. 'genetically complex' is such an expression, you can use it to compare two genes or set of genes and show that one is more complex than the other, but it has no strict definition and its meaning change with the context you use it.
That doesn't preclude scientists to use this series of word, but it means different thing, the level of complexity it refers to changes each time it is used.

It's a bit like the word 'big'. It is regularly used in papers. But depending if you are reading a genetic; a microbiology or an astronomical paper, what they mean by 'big' differs quite a bit.

So, basing you argument on the word "big" would be silly, especially as many people have been patiently explaining through many pages how the evolutionary theory does not predict that more primitive organisms will always have simple genomes.
Click to expand...

It's simpler than that in this paper. The authors say they were "surprised" at the level of genetic complexity and mention finding genetic sequences for vertebrate and human nerve function and how since these functions don't exist, they were "surprised" to find them.

Why were they "surprised"?
 
randman said:
.

That's where you are wrong. There are not new traits. There are genes they didn't expect to be there.

Why is that?

Why were they "surprised" in the coral study, for example?
Click to expand...

Stop this.
When you are talking to an adult you state your point clearly

When you use this pseudo-socratic BS, it shows no respect, no clarity, and no intellectual honesty.
 
randman said:
Did I ever mention wolves? Of course, dogs and wolves were misclassified by evos. They are clearly the same kind...:)



He asked about what I believe. If I or you waited around for empirical proof of something, we'd not get too far in life. Certainly wouldn't get married and have kids, for example.



The fact you present such a weak example is all the more evidence in my favor.



Like i said, evos are still trying to use Haeckel. I rest my case on that one (and his ideas were and are still way off from "the truth" and his data fraudulent).



Well, even evos now say the proto-organisms are indeed insanely complex genetically, having "more types of genes than are available today."

But you are correct there is no known mechanism still in operation to explain it. That doesn't justify insisting mechanisms which clearly work against macro-evolution such as natural selection are the mechanism.

So mainstream evos keep insisting something shown to be wrong to be effective which is why Grasse said "evolution was a myth " and accused mainstream evos of fraud, and front loaders haven't figured out the mechanism. I'd say the front loaders are more consistent with the data but they definitely have a hole there without knowing the mechanism.
Click to expand...

Really?
 
Lowpro said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurochs

I hope this meets your definition of macro evolution and speciation.

If it doesn't then nothing can please you; your fossil whales are not fossil rabbits in the precambrian I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

Haven't looked at it yet, but speciation is not macroevolution, imo. If you don't wish to discuss things with someone criticizing Darwinian evolution, that's Ok.

We don't have to waste each other's time.
 
Look, you don't get macro evolution without speciation. Maybe that's the disconnect here, you don't understand at all what it takes to achieve your definition of macroevolution.

Basically you are using an infinite goalpost moving idea.
 
randman said:
Ok, so at least you have begun admitting that the paper says what I say it does though you still are adding things I didn't say and wasting time rebutting point I haven't made.
Click to expand...

I see you're reading my posts with the same acumen you read the papers you cite, if you think I'm "admitting" what you claim is true.

For example, never said the genes were only found in humans, and clearly state the opposite by citing where they are found here. It's offensive to have to correct your claims saying I claimed these were "exclusive" to human beings when I said the exact opposite in citing the study.
Click to expand...

Then why all that harping on their use of the word "human" and "surprisingly similar"? Just a red herring?

The plain fact is that the coral does not contain any genes for the human nervous system specifically, only basic vertebrate nervous system genes that can be found in all vertebrates, even fish and frogs.

Why is that?
Click to expand...

Because, on balance, it happens to be true. It's not always true, it's just true a lot of the time. And using the general truth of this to imply a specific truth regarding any specific species has its risks, as the paper's authors themselves point out.

Specifically, why are they surprised to find genes corresponding to complex nerve functions in vertebrates and human beings?

The answer is pretty simple but we can't really move this discussion forward without a clear understanding of why they were surprised since that's at the heart of what I am talking about here.
Click to expand...

Yes, the answer is indeed simple, and laid out in the paper itself. They were surprised because the intermediate invertebrate genomes did not possess those particular genes. Because of that, it was thought that those particular genes had developed after the evolutionary split into vertebrates and invertebrates. Now, it seems that those particular genes developed before the split, and invertebrates mostly lost them over the generations, while vertebrates took those genes and used them along with new genes as part of the complex nervous system they evolved.

You seem to think that a few genes that the coral uses for things other than a complex nervous system being lost in invertebrates but retained by vertebrates and used there for a complex nervous system tears apart the foundations of evolution. And, as evidence, you point to the astonishment of the scientists of this find.

But they aren't astonished because what they found tears apart evolution. They're astonished because the timing of when certain genes evolved turned out to be different than what they thought it originally was. But this has no effect whatsoever on how we think evolution works, or the general pattern of development in evolutionary history. We probably don't even have to redraw any cladograms because of this discovery!
 
The plain fact is that the coral does not contain any genes for the human nervous system specifically, only basic vertebrate nervous system genes that can be found in all vertebrates, even fish and frogs.
Click to expand...

You are reaching and stretching. They don't cite human homologs for nothing, but that's besides the point anyway and not germane to the discussion.

I'll ignore the peripheral stuff. Your comment below gets into what I am talking about.

Because of that, it was thought that those particular genes had developed after the evolutionary split into vertebrates and invertebrates.
Click to expand...

That's not the only reason. They specifically state that because there was no advanced nerve function, they were "surprised" to find these genes here.

To restate, they expected these genes to emerge along with the function of complex nerve function. That's what I am getting at. It shouldn't even be controversial. That's what evos expected to find. They expected such genes to emerge and evolve along with vertebrate nerve function.

Why?

Because that's the basic narrative (exceptions noted) for how genomes evolve. They are thought to evolve hand in hand with traits that are selected for.

We can talk about other papers but if you guys are going to pretend ND does not predict natural selection playing a role in the emergence of new genes, we have nothing to talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom