Response to 'prove evolution true'

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Actually, if you look above, people have sought to answer his points, and have asked some straightforward questions which he has refused to answer. He has responded instead with a mixture of boasting and insults.

So how exactly would you suggest twhitehead answers the points he raised?

They are having exchanges, and I'm sure when you are in them you get
and give too. I found it odd that instead of bringing something to the
table you choose to insult. I can tell you with certainity that more than
a few people here boast, and insult, there are a couple that post here I'll
never respond to again due to their insults. It happens in conversations
some times with intent to harm, other times not, but with text it can
come off badly each time. No one is forcing you to read anyone's posts.
Kelly

Originally posted by King Tiger
Correct if I'm wrong, but you are largely talking about the process of speciation-the idea that breeding populations can split into two separate non-genetically related groups. Dawkin's says Speciation begins by accident." (1) Dare I impose the term random chance?

Yet, this is not what I'm talking about. As remarkable as speciation would be if it did ...[text shortened]... ch. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. "PNAS" 103, no. 2:425-430. 2006.

(4) Ibid.

But if it is mathematically possible, as you do acknowledge, it is mathematically probable dew time -and thus L-protein mutations are surely tenable. Anyway, I will come from another perspective;

Since each piece of the linear chain that forms a protein backbone consists indeed of one of the 20 amino-acid existing in nature, you are aware of the fact that a single protein chain is for our convenience represented as a string of letters from a 20 elements alphabet (primary structure and residue of the protein), which is several billion years old (I ‘m aware of the fact that you, as a YEC, discard this thesis based on your religious beliefs). If the similarity between two protein sequences from different organisms is significant, then the proteins are homologs of one another and they probably share a similar structure and carry out similar functions. The sequence similarity suggests an evolutionary relationship between proteins, so it can be properly suggested that they evolved from a common ancestor -and this is how the scientists actually describe homologous proteins as belonging to the same “family” and build a “molecular” taxonomy by tracing the lineages from comparisons of sequences. Closely related proteins have the most similar sequences; distantly related proteins have only faintly similar sequences, and the sequence similarity is computed by string alignment algorithms that search the maximum local alignment between two protein sequences (1. Smith and Waterman, 1981, 2. Altschul et al., 1997). Once a multiple alignment (TrEMBL, Bairoch and Apweiler, 1999) is computed, a profile is obtained by counting the frequency of each amino-acid at every position in the sequence. These residues contain information about the conservation of each position during the evolution of the protein family, and furthermore multiple alignment profiles have been introduced (Rost and Sander, 1993b) in the context of SS prediction because they convey more information than the bare amino-acid string about the native protein structure (of course it is acknowledged that the conformation of every position of the sequence is influenced by the whole content of amino-acids of the protein, therefore the same group of linked amino-acids can appear in the so called chameleons). Also, according to Abagyan and Batalov, 1997, sequence positions that are well conserved in different organisms may identify important residues for the structure and function of the protein.
That being said, the specific sequences of amino-acids involved in the formation of binding sites have been reused by evolution in very different contexts, they are conserved and have been identified in many non-homologous proteins. The point is that the binding of a particular ligand to a certain protein can be regulated not only from physical and chemical properties but also from the availability of the ligand through a specific pathway involving different enzymes, therefore the actual functions of a protein could not only derive from its amino-acid sequence: the biochemical context must be taken into account, and this is indeed the case for sufficient protein-function prediction and studies;
😵

Originally posted by King Tiger
Correct if I'm wrong, but you are largely talking about the process of speciation-the idea that breeding populations can split into two separate non-genetically related groups. Dawkin's says Speciation begins by accident." (1) Dare I impose the term random chance?

Yet, this is not what I'm talking about. As remarkable as speciation would be if it did ...[text shortened]... ch. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. "PNAS" 103, no. 2:425-430. 2006.

(4) Ibid.

hard to take care of all your points for they are many (and incredibly flawed). twhitehead is doing a good job of that. just going to address one.

"Point to a modern scientifically observed speciation please"
you want a process that takes thousands of years, sometimes millions, to be documented in the 6000 years of human history (counting roughly from the time we invented writing).

how about the countless transitional fossils between certain species? would that count? can i give you a link to those, or you want to limit the way i can respond further?

how about the chihuahua? this man made abomination is as much a dog as a large rat is. (i am exaggerating of course). during the course of few generations (compared to the millions of years, a mere blimp), we have managed to severely alter a species of dog. do you think given enough time, (and assuming the chihuahua isn't the weakling he is and can actually survive on his own) it won't further evolve?

or do you aim to take my example, twist it into "proof" only guided evolution can happen?




you are the creationist with big words, the redneck creationists are gobbling your nonsense up because they sound sciencey.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Correct if I'm wrong, but you are largely talking about the process of speciation-the idea that breeding populations can split into two separate non-genetically related groups. Dawkin's says Speciation begins by accident." (1) Dare I impose the term random chance?

Yet, this is not what I'm talking about. As remarkable as speciation would be if it did ...[text shortened]... ch. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. "PNAS" 103, no. 2:425-430. 2006.

(4) Ibid.

and another point: your probability argument.

you fail at the point where you assume that the world today was the end goal all along. yes, if you start with the primordial soup, and aim to reach homo sapiens sapiens and all the rest of the tree of life, the probability is low. of course it is because certain conditions had to align.


evolution doesn't have preferences. if chances would have been different, maybe a civilization of intelligent tigers would have had chimps for pets (and posted lolchimps on their internet) and would have marveled what low probability their existence had. maybe intelligent raptors if the dinosaurs wouldn't have gone extinct.

release of huge amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere favored some organisms and not others. mammals were favored over dinosaurs at the end of cretaceous. a species of monkeyz were favored over other. sapiens was favored over neanderthals. each change in climate, geology, atmospheric composition made it necessary for organisms to adapt, or perish. as such, chance has less to do with evolution than the obvious reality of those better adapted got to live long enough to transmit their genes to their offspring.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you fail at the point where you assume that the world today was the end goal all along.

That is a big one. If you are calculating the probability that a protein could evolve, you must know your solution space ie the number of all possible proteins. Otherwise the results of the calculation don't really tell us anything useful.

For example King Tiger's OP probability calculation is equivalent to flipping a coin 20 times and calculating the probability of getting the resulting sequence. Now King Tiger would have us believe that the probability is so low that you have to conclude that it was impossible that you flipped the coin 20 times. Yet everyone of us knows that flipping a coin 20 times has been done.

Originally posted by KellyJay
They are having exchanges, and I'm sure when you are in them you get
and give too. I found it odd that instead of bringing something to the
table you choose to insult. I can tell you with certainity that more than
a few people here boast, and insult, there are a couple that post here I'll
never respond to again due to their insults. It happens in conve ...[text shortened]... with text it can
come off badly each time. No one is forcing you to read anyone's posts.
Kelly

It was hardly that insulting. I think you are confusing harshly critical with insulting. I think you know me well enough now to know that I don't throw around gratuitous insults.

And I did contribute to the debate. The poster was unfairly accusing Richard Dawkins of having called an eminent scientist mad and also accusing Dawkins of putting words in other people's mouths. If that is relevant to the debate, then I balanced this by showing that Dyson is equally guilty.

Originally posted by King Tiger
I've been informed that many of you will now discount what I saw as foolish from now on because I have the 'audacity' to believe in a young earth.

First, let me say. If that is the case and you do this, then you are actually the close minded one. Let the argument speak for itself. I wouldn't consider myself an expert in these matters, but I am educate ...[text shortened]... ost). So I'm interested in having hopefully a respectful and intelligent conversation over this.

I'm actually flabbergasted. At first I thought it was a joke, but evidently not, but to heed your request of respect and intelligence. Here we go.

Here's something I've detailed to other YEC's on the forum in the past, none have given a response. Ice core samples. Here's something I've posted before -
Here's the deal with ice core samples, as the layers of snow build up year upon year whatever is lying on top of the snow gets trapped. Forever. What concerns us for this discussion is ash, volcanic ash. When a volcano erupts, massive amounts of ash and sulphur are blown into the atmosphere, eventually it will fall back to earth and settle. Now some of this ash and sulphur will end up on the ice of Antarctica or Greenland or somewhere else where it will remain until the next snow of winter begins to fall, trapping it forever. Or until a beady-eyed scientist digs it up and starts to analyse it under their electron microscope.

Ice core samples work like tree rings, especially at the top of the sample, you count back through the layers one at a time year by year. Now we know when big volcanic eruptions have occurred during recorded history, for example the eruption of Krakatoa happened in 1883 and sure enough the ice core samples show volcanic ash and a massive sulphur spike relating to that period. In 1600 Huaynaputina erupted in Peru, and again if you count back through the layers of the ice, volcanic ash and a spike in sulphur can be found. The same for Vesuvius in 79AD, evidence for it's eruption cabe found in ice cores form Iceland.

Here's a paper which looks at volcanic ash and sulphur deposits contained within an ice core sample from Antarctica looking back over 4100 years.

http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/dai00-1.pdf

The 4100 years contained within this ice core sample in this study is 200m long, yet the ice sheet in East Antarctica is over 3km thick. Surely you can see the implications of that?

Originally posted by King Tiger
Yes, I do.

And your use of the term 'actually' makes me realize you are likely going to consider this stupid. Once again, why can't we just give the academic nod (theists and atheists both). There are very intelligent people on all sides.

Also, where do the dinosaurs fit into your scheme of things?

Originally posted by King Tiger
I've been informed that many of you will now discount what I saw as foolish from now on because I have the 'audacity' to believe in a young earth.

First, let me say. If that is the case and you do this, then you are actually the close minded one. Let the argument speak for itself. I wouldn't consider myself an expert in these matters, but I am educate ...[text shortened]... ost). So I'm interested in having hopefully a respectful and intelligent conversation over this.

actually no. not every opinion has merit. one isn't closed minded if he dismisses magic (as portrayed in D&D) as foolish. a young earth hypothesis has absolutely no merit, has been proven to be impossible and doesn't warrant a honest debate every time a yec thinks he has discovered the ultimate "proof"

you have no right to demand we play with you the debating game when you invent rules and change the existent ones.

imagine please a nutcase trying to debate medicine but insisting we consider the healing magic based on faith present in RPG games is real. would you humor him?

Originally posted by King Tiger
No, but this is a waste of my time. You clearly know little of the debate and have a rudimentary understanding. I'm pretty convinced what I present is accurate. But I'm not going to keep presenting evidence to you when you intentionally misinterpret it.

Lets make a deal. If you can find one single poster on this forum that understands what you were trying to calculate in your probability argument in the OP, and agrees with your conclusions, then I will admit to being the dunce and having a 'rudimentary understanding'. If however you cannot find a single poster in this forum then you admit that it is your communication skills that are lacking rather than my comprehension ability.

Originally posted by King Tiger
Surely you can see how evolution would have implications regarding these 4 questions?

Like what? I for one am not aware of any. Could you please explicitly list what you take to be the implications here?

Originally posted by King Tiger
Are you suggesting you've studied every aspect thoroughly then for all your conclusions? I have finite time.

We all have finite time for every project or inquiry. That just means one has to prioritize in accordance with available resources. But, gosh, for the subject of the earth's age, I would think study of the geological evidence would be particularly apt.

Originally posted by black beetle
But if it is mathematically possible, as you do acknowledge, it is mathematically probable dew time -and thus L-protein mutations are surely tenable. Anyway, I will come from another perspective;

Since each piece of the linear chain that forms a protein backbone consists indeed of one of the 20 amino-acid existing in nature, you are aware of the fact ...[text shortened]... account, and this is indeed the case for sufficient protein-function prediction and studies;
😵

"But if it is mathematically possible, as you do acknowledge, it is mathematically probable dew time -and thus L-protein mutations are surely tenable. Anyway, I will come from another perspective; "

One of the reasons I have an issue with this type of thing. It is assumed
that at all times all the proper conditions are met the whole time which allows
the numbers to be ran. If at any time during this process a mutation occurs
that ends it that ruins the process, if any required condition leaves the numbers
cannot be ran. So it is a huge matter of faith that in reality this could occur
against the odds, more than having God part of reality in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
We all have finite time for every project or inquiry. That just means one has to prioritize in accordance with available resources. But, gosh, for the subject of the earth's age, I would think study of the geological evidence would be particularly apt.

I agree earth's age is a good place to start; however, since you can string
together several 'tests' that agree with what you want, does not mean you
are correct, and it does not mean you can be shown to be wrong. Mainly
because those that would show you to be wrong would have to string
together several 'tests' that disagree with what you want to believe is true
in such a fashion it could prove you wrong. That is highly unlikely, since
the only thing you'd have to do is simply say I trust these over those. So
you are safe, you cannot be proven wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree earth's age is a good place to start; however, since you can string
together several 'tests' that agree with what you want, does not mean you
are correct, and it does not mean you can be shown to be wrong. Mainly
because those that would show you to be wrong would have to string
together several 'tests' that disagree with what you want to believ ...[text shortened]... do is simply say I trust these over those. So
you are safe, you cannot be proven wrong.
Kelly

Honestly, I'm really not sure what you mean. I'm also not sure how this is relevant here. If a person is just hunting around for, or outright fabricating, tests that ostensibly confirm "what (he or she) wants to believe is true", then he or she is being intellectually disengenuous, irresponsible, etc, etc. He or she clearly has some problems approaching the subject in a sufficiently objective manner, and that is a failing.

But I was addressing our friend King Tiger, who has assured us that he/she is intellectually responsible and disciplined in his/her approach to this topic. That may still be the case, even if he/she fails for whatever reason to appreciate the relevance of studying geological evidence or otherwise mis-prioritizes it within his/her program of study.