Another Anti-Science Bill

Another Anti-Science Bill

There are 454 comments on the Okie Funk story from Feb 19, 2014, titled Another Anti-Science Bill. In it, Okie Funk reports that:

The Oklahoma House could consider a bill today that if signed into law would undermine science education in the state's classrooms, especially the teaching of evolution theory.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Okie Funk.

The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#202 Mar 15, 2014
defender wrote:
1. Evolution is not goal directed.. But yet there IS foresight in highly complex Eco systems and food chains not to mention adaptation for benefit of life as a whole... Colony effect... Widen your scope honey bun...
Then demonstrate that foresight then.
defender wrote:
2. The mechanisms are not random? Ok then finally enlighten us if not created or natural processes then what???
Yes, natural processes. Are all natural processes random?
defender wrote:
3, This statement speaks for itself...
Yes it does. The opposite of intelligence is NOT random. Would you like me to present you with examples of natural processes which aren't random?
defender wrote:
4. Refute what? I'm asking a question not making a statement...
Refute the post I linked to. You can't. But then that's because you don't have reality on your side. That's why we've literally been waiting YEARS for you fundies to do so. 150 years you've been saying "Darwinism will collapse any day now!" or "It's collapsed already!", and yet the scientific community are blissfully unaware of it. And you've had over 20 years to tell us what the "scientific theory" of ID is. Or three thousand, depending on how you look at it. And STILL not one IDCer on the planet is able to tell us.

Why do you think that is? Big mean old atheist worldwide Darwinist conspiracy?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#203 Mar 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you are asking for a level of detail we cannot hope to achieve for most things at this time. We are still unraveling the connection between genetics and what we see at the level of the organism.
That said, here is an interesting article about how fireflies developed the ability to produce light. It seems that luciferase is related to an enzyme for fat metabolism and that with another chemical, even the regular fat enzyme will produce light.
Luciferase? We told you Darwinism was of the DEVIL!!!

>:-(
HTS

Mandan, ND

#204 Mar 15, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you are asking for a level of detail we cannot hope to achieve for most things at this time. We are still unraveling the connection between genetics and what we see at the level of the organism.
That said, here is an interesting article about how fireflies developed the ability to produce light. It seems that luciferase is related to an enzyme for fat metabolism and that with another chemical, even the regular fat enzyme will produce light.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/unders...
And, again, this fits perfectly with evolutionary theory: that a process once used for one thing will be jury-rigged for another thing. Fat metabolism is something that is common and a small change leads to the luciferase in fireflies.
Now, why would that be the case under a design theory? Why would a light giving structure be chemically and genetically related to an enzyme for fat metabolism? Not exactly a typical design strategy, eh?
I read the article you posted. It was VERY unscholarly. In the first place, it was the same worn out molecular homology argument. The author even had the gall to use the strawman argument that because luciferase is similar chemically to an enzyme used in fat metabolism, that this means that bioluminescence didn't "poof" into existence. As usual, no logical explanation is given as to why that conclusion should be accepted.
Secondly, it was only a hypothesis. Notice that they could not produce bioluminescence in fruit flies...so their experiment failed.
All life forms share commonality with other forms of life. That does not offer the slightest hint of evidence that no intelligence created life. It does not prove that species are related by common descent. No one is denying homology. It is duly noted throughout nature. But it is a failed argument.
If you could induce mutations in fruit flies and create bioluminescence, you would have an argument. All you have at this point is wishful thinking.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#205 Mar 16, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the article you posted. It was VERY unscholarly. In the first place, it was the same worn out molecular homology argument. The author even had the gall to use the strawman argument that because luciferase is similar chemically to an enzyme used in fat metabolism, that this means that bioluminescence didn't "poof" into existence. As usual, no logical explanation is given as to why that conclusion should be accepted.
Secondly, it was only a hypothesis. Notice that they could not produce bioluminescence in fruit flies...so their experiment failed.
All life forms share commonality with other forms of life. That does not offer the slightest hint of evidence that no intelligence created life. It does not prove that species are related by common descent. No one is denying homology. It is duly noted throughout nature. But it is a failed argument.
If you could induce mutations in fruit flies and create bioluminescence, you would have an argument. All you have at this point is wishful thinking.
It wasn't a science article. It was a press article about a science paper. Your mock superiority regarding the scholarship is meaningless.

They produced bioluminescence in two cell lines so the failure to show it in adult fruit flies by feeding is not a deal breaker.

I can't imagine a reasonable person thinking they would find evidence of a designer in this research. One wasn't being looked for. The point was to determine how fireflies evolved luciferase for communication. Evolution works with what is available. This is similar to the ice-binding glycoprotein of notothenoid fish. It evolved from a digestive enzyme. In fact a chimeric gene that express both the digestive enzyme and the glycoprotein has been found cinching the connection there.

Common descent does support evolution, but it says nothing about a designer. Agreed. How many people have said that on here over and over and it is now sinking in.

You have denied homology repeatedly. So was that a lie. Or is this now the lie? No wait, you are denying homology. You are just stumbling all over trying to do it.

Transforming bioluminescence in insects has been done. Sean Carroll has used GFP to study evolution in Drosophila. Danio has been developed to glow for the aquarium trade. Plants have been transformed using luciferase and are luminescent. Microbacterium have been transformed using luciferase and they glow. This is just off the top of my head. Oh, flour beetles have been transformed using piggyBac transposon to glow red or green.

What I wonder is how a physician supposedly trained in science cannot be at least tangentially aware of some of this work. Research using GFP and luciferase have been an important aspect of medical research. Whadda ya say doc? Fill us in on how you missed that class.

The point is clear that more and more evidence supporting the accepted theory of evolution just keeps rolling in.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#206 Mar 16, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is... life is not simple as you imagine it to be.
Natural selection might be able to create a large cat from a small cat.
Natural selection cannot create novel traits like the instinctive ability of a bee to make honey, and the complex social integration of a functioning hive. You take simplistic answers and apply them to the whole of biology. Is that science?
In every case where the changes are large - whether its honey making bees or the development of a feather, NO biologist assumes that the changes were single stage events. We see this in the famous rotary flagellum, where the last time I looked 19 viable intermediate stages were identified.

Not only that, but events cascade. When an ape became bipedal, that looked like one small change. Yet it opens the gateway to a cascade of other changes. Hands that were already optimised for locomotion and climbing were no longer optimised for a bipedal existence, so more outliers in the natural range of hand variation were selected. The opposable thumb became more prominent. The additional metabolic load of a slightly larger brain was no longer excessive in the move from more coarse vegetable to more meat and marrow, and the colon also shrank as a consequence. Big jaws became less necessary, meaning there was spare capacity for more weighty brains too. All these factors would have worked in parallel, and the evidence that this happened is right there in the fossil record.

In the case of bees, we have intermediate semi communal wasp species and the like. Its not one sudden step to the honey bee.

Whenever you claim that a step is too large, a biologist is simply going to ask the logical question - what series of steps would NOT be too large? And by asking THAT question, and adding it to where the existing fossil record already pointed, scientists like Neil Shubin have been able to search and find transitionals based on evolutionary predictions.

Its that kind of track record that increasingly shows your scepticism has crossed over into mere denialism, and your motives are not driven by the search for truth but the defence of religious dogma.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#207 Mar 16, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think that cytochrome C can be rearranged 10^93 ways and still be functional?
Whatever number of possibilities you imagine to exist to result in a functional eye, thenumberof mistakes is finitely greater. How many possibilities exist in combinations of letters to result in a meaningful book. Seemingly infinite? That number is vastly superseded by the number of possible combinations of meaningless letters.
I think that because its what has been calculated, based on the fact that only a small portion of the Cyt-C protein has high specificity. So long as their alignment does not interfere with the functioning of this portion, the remaining part of the protein can be just about any base combination.

Now, granted the number of ways to arrange letters randomly is far larger than the number that would make a meaningful book. There are many more ways to sound like Foucault than a real philosopher like Popper. However, we are not talking about a random arrangement. We are talking about selection of function, and cumulative selection of ever more effective and specific function. So there are many more ways, one assumes, of building pigments that do not respond to incident light than do respond. But when one is formed randomly that does, perhaps initially with a totally different useful function and when many generations later the cell produces another reaction in response to that light induced change in the pigment, and when a response to that change happens to affect survival, then a new cascade begins.

See, its not about monkeys just randomly typing letters until you get Shakespeare. Its about monkeys typing and when a random bunch of keystrokes produces a meaningful word, that word being "set" in the next iteration, and when words happen to line up meaningfully, their sequence gets "set" in the next iteration too. And when its modelled that way, which is much more analogous to evolution with selection, then those monkeys can type Shakespeare in a few hundred thousand years.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#209 Mar 16, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the article you posted. It was VERY unscholarly.
As Dan pointed out, it was just a news article, not a scholarly one.
In the first place, it was the same worn out molecular homology argument.
You think arguments, like shoes, get worn out from repeated wear? The objective fact was, that the bioluminescent protein was found to be extremely similar to an existing one with a different function.

Now, lets see how "IDers" would normally try to present this. "Here is a protein with 254 bases and the odds of this protein arising by chance is so low that it would not happen in 10 ages of the earth!" That is the kind of garbage we are used to hearing from you lot. This refutes it.
The author even had the gall to use the strawman argument that because luciferase is similar chemically to an enzyme used in fat metabolism, that this means that bioluminescence didn't "poof" into existence.
Again, look in terms of typical ID claims....

"This protein could only be designed, its Irreducibly complex! We know because if you take away some bases it would not glow"

Err....not if very similar proteins are proven to already be useful in completely unrelated ways.
As usual, no logical explanation is given as to why that conclusion should be accepted.
Because its assumed that the reader will realise that magic poofing is an unnecessary explanation when the much more mundane one - that its a small adaptation from an existing protein - is a far better explanation
All life forms share commonality with other forms of life. That does not offer the slightest hint of evidence that no intelligence created life.
All life forms not only share commonality, they do so strictly according to the nested hierarchy of common descent.
It does not prove that species are related by common descent.
This experiment does not prove common descent, of course.

But it shows yet another strange phenomenon of nature that is compatible with common descent. Put it this way - if all kinds of weird proteins with no traceable linkage to other proteins were rife across living organisms, that would count against evolution and for design. But as we see here, this is not the case. Proteins and the genes that produce them come in families easily explained by mutation and gene duplication, both readily observable processes.

That is compatible with proteins evolving.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#210 Mar 16, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the article you posted. It was VERY unscholarly.
It was a *news* article, not a scholarly article. If you want to see the scholarly article, look at
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/05/...
In the first place, it was the same worn out molecular homology argument. The author even had the gall to use the strawman argument that because luciferase is similar chemically to an enzyme used in fat metabolism, that this means that bioluminescence didn't "poof" into existence.
Seems fair to me. Given that we have a candidate ancestor, why would we assume it 'poofed' into existence?
As usual, no logical explanation is given as to why that conclusion should be accepted.
Well, among other reasons, because we have a candidate ancestor and because we don't typically assume things poof into existence?
Secondly, it was only a hypothesis. Notice that they could not produce bioluminescence in fruit flies...so their experiment failed.
Because the fruit flies were *fed* the required chemical and it was probably digested?
All life forms share commonality with other forms of life.
Exactly. And they also fall into a nested hierarchy that shows a developmental past.
That does not offer the slightest hint of evidence that no intelligence created life. It does not prove that species are related by common descent. No one is denying homology. It is duly noted throughout nature. But it is a failed argument.
It shows that new features can be acquired by small steps from proteins that do very different tasks. That is one aspect that creationists always seem to miss: that small changes in *cause* do not mean small changes in *effect*. They seem to think that evolution predicts gradual changes in *effects*(i.e, the phenotype) instead of gradual changes in the *cause*(the genotype).
If you could induce mutations in fruit flies and create bioluminescence, you would have an argument. All you have at this point is wishful thinking.
Not at all. We have a credible link between the luminescence producing protein in fireflies and the fat metabolizing protein in related species. We have a specific chemical that produces light even with the ancestral fat-metabolizing protein.

No,*you* are ignoring the actual evidence we have for relatedness of these chemicals: they are genetically similar, produced in similar species, and the fat-metabolizing protein produces light in response to a chemical related to the known light producing chemical of fireflies.

Now, why would this be the case under a design scenario? Why would there be a link between fat metabolism and light production? It makes perfect sense in an evolutionary scenario, but none in a design scenario.
HTS

Williston, ND

#211 Mar 16, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

Now, why would this be the case under a design scenario? Why would there be a link between fat metabolism and light production? It makes perfect sense in an evolutionary scenario, but none in a design scenario.
You cannot make any assumptions about a "design scenario" without invoking religious arguments as you how you assume a God would or would not conduct creation. If you had enough knowledge to create a firefly, the most scientifically logical and direct method would be to start with a chemically-related compound such as a fat-metabolizing protein and go from there.
Why do you assume that an intelligent creator would pursue a scientifically illogical course?
Maybe it was easier for God to being with a fat metabolizing protein. When God created the woman, he began with the rib of Adam (DNA) rather than starting over from scratch. Doesn't that make logical sense. If He already created a fat metabolizing enzyme that would suit his purposes, why start over for bioluminescence? My point is that you are making the grave error that almost all evolutionists make. You are engaging in the vain attempt to scientifically disprove God

Your elaborate explanations are merely interesting hunches. However, such proposals invariably fail to address the barriers that would preclude such a transmutation...such as the mechanisms as to how an insect controls the on and off switch of luminescence, and how such complex behaviors became in coded into its DNA. The observation that luciferase and a fat metabolizing protein appear chemically similar does not address the question as to how one could evolve into the other. Sheer luck? What are the probabilities involved. The repeated dogma of "mutations + millions of years" is not a scientific answer.
HTS

Williston, ND

#212 Mar 16, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
This experiment does not prove common descent, of course.
But it shows yet another strange phenomenon of nature that is compatible with common descent. Put it this way - if all kinds of weird proteins with no traceable linkage to other proteins were rife across living organisms, that would count against evolution and for design. But as we see here, this is not the case. Proteins and the genes that produce them come in families easily explained by mutation and gene duplication, both readily observable processes.
That is compatible with proteins evolving.
You cannot logically state that "design" would predict "all kinds of weird proteins with no tradable linkage to other persons rife across living organisms" ... That is an illogical philosophical assumption.
You have not actually demonstrated that proteins of similar structure can "easily" be explained by mutation and gene duplication. That is dogma, not science.
You have [quite skillfully] offered a persuasive hypothesis, and are expecting me to have faith in your intuitions. If you could actually mutate a fruitily and create a firefly, you would have something. Is that an unreasonable request? You think it happened without any intelligence. You said it's a simple transformation. What would it take for a team of genetic engineers to manipulate the chromosomes of a fruitily and create a firefly? You think it happened without any intelligence. Do you have any mathematical justification that millions of years is the panacea to overcome all obstacles to evolution?]
HTS

International Falls, MN

#213 Mar 16, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
You have denied homology repeatedly. So was that a lie. Or is this now the lie? No wait, you are denying homology. You are just stumbling all over trying to do it.
Transforming bioluminescence in insects has been done. Sean Carroll has used GFP to study evolution in Drosophila. Danio has been developed to glow for the aquarium trade. Plants have been transformed using luciferase and are luminescent. Microbacterium have been transformed using luciferase and they glow. This is just off the top of my head. Oh, flour beetles have been transformed using piggyBac transposon to glow red or green.
What I wonder is how a physician supposedly trained in science cannot be at least tangentially aware of some of this work. Research using GFP and luciferase have been an important aspect of medical research. Whadda ya say doc? Fill us in on how you missed that class.
The point is clear that more and more evidence supporting the accepted theory of evolution just keeps rolling in.
I have never denied homology. It is your philosophical interpretation of homology that I dispute.
You assume that it indicates common descent. That is a hypothesis that you cannot prove.
If anything has been "proven" it is that drosophila cannot evolve regardless of the tens of thousands of generations that have been observed in laboratory experiments. Hence, the suggestion that a drosophila could be selectively bred into a firefly is immediately scoffed at... Because it is impossible.
The Danio was genetically altered by INTELLIGENT DESIGN which required the insertion of a new gene through genetic engineering. How does that prove ANYTHING?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#214 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot logically state that "design" would predict "all kinds of weird proteins with no tradable linkage to other persons rife across living organisms" ... That is an illogical philosophical assumption.
But that is not what I said. I said such a scenario would be compatible with design, but would be difficult for evolution to explain.

On the other hand, finding that a protein with a novel function did not arrive mysteriously out of the blue but in fact was a minor variation on existing proteins is compatible with evolution. Its also compatible with design, but then "anything" is, because Design is so flabby as a hypothesis that you cannot even present hypothetical data that would invalidate it.

Given a very precise explanation that fits all the facts, versus a completely flabby "explanation" that could fit any old facts, the more precise explanation wins.
You have not actually demonstrated that proteins of similar structure can "easily" be explained by mutation and gene duplication.
Gene duplication and mutation are demonstrated. The ability of mutations to alter protein function is demonstrated. Therefore, yes, its easily explained.
If you could actually mutate a fruitily and create a firefly, you would have something. Is that an unreasonable request?
If we engineered the protein change, that would be a designed attempt, so the request is reasonable but proves nothing.

If we simply waited for a mutation that produced a fluorescent version of the original gene...well, nature has millions of years up its sleeves, and we do not. I suppose we could calculate the odds of a similar mutation occurring on that gene if we know the basic mutation rate of the fruit fly, and therefore calculate how long it should take before that mutation would appear by chance. But we must stick with experiments that are practical today in our attempts to confirm or falsify our scientific theories. Whatever you say, the fact that the protein turned out to be closely related to existing ones must dramatically increase the odds that random mutation can explain it.

The odds that a firefly identical to today's fireflies could mutate from a fruit fly is vanishingly small given that there are many more differences than just the fluorescence. If we went back to the Cambrian and played evolution forward from then, the odds are that by today there would be a completely DIFFERENT flora and fauna every time we did it. That is inevitable given the random nature of mutations and the inherent unpredictability of complex systems.

You seem to have "preprogrammed directionality" so burned into your thinking that you cannot imagine how things work without it. But that is how evolution works, and so far nobody has come up with a evidence why that could not be the case.

Just to make that perfectly clear - there is no reason to believe that re-running evolution would produce mammals, simians, apes, humans, all over again. There are a million points of happenstance in that journey. Earth MIGHT produce another intelligent lifeform, but its not going to be some pointy-eared logical version of ourselves. That really is fantasy. It would be something completely different, if it happened at all.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#215 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never denied homology. It is your philosophical interpretation of homology that I dispute.
You assume that it indicates common descent. That is a hypothesis that you cannot prove.
If anything has been "proven" it is that drosophila cannot evolve regardless of the tens of thousands of generations that have been observed in laboratory experiments. Hence, the suggestion that a drosophila could be selectively bred into a firefly is immediately scoffed at... Because it is impossible.
The Danio was genetically altered by INTELLIGENT DESIGN which required the insertion of a new gene through genetic engineering. How does that prove ANYTHING?
Homology does not indicate common descent (at least not immediately). The homology of external shape of a shark and a dolphin do not suggest they have a recent common ancestor. It merely suggests that there are a limited number of ways for a vertebrate to be streamlined in water, something they both require for hunting.

Even Aristotle could see that the total structure of whales was more homologous with land mammals. He just could not explain it. We can.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#216 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Hence, the suggestion that a drosophila could be selectively bred into a firefly is immediately scoffed at... Because it is impossible.
Quite. As evolution would predict, and explain. For reasons already given.

A fruit fly might evolve into something, but declaring what it should evolve into before the fact is presuming directionality. Our only prediction is that it will either optimise to the conditions before it, or will go extinct. If enough optimisation events with enough changes occur in succession, it will be effectively a new species.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#217 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
I read the article you posted. It was VERY unscholarly.
Hooter, you wouldn't recognise scholarship if a library fell on your head.
HTS wrote:
In the first place, it was the same worn out molecular homology argument. The author even had the gall to use the strawman argument that because luciferase is similar chemically to an enzyme used in fat metabolism, that this means that bioluminescence didn't "poof" into existence. As usual, no logical explanation is given as to why that conclusion should be accepted.
More rather no logical explanation is given as to why we should accept creationist magical poofing.
HTS wrote:
Secondly, it was only a hypothesis. Notice that they could not produce bioluminescence in fruit flies...so their experiment failed.
All life forms share commonality with other forms of life.
Therefore the experiment didn't fail.
HTS wrote:
That does not offer the slightest hint of evidence that no intelligence created life.
That is not our claim. We don't have to falsify that possibility because there's zero evidence for it.(shrug)
HTS wrote:
It does not prove that species are related by common descent. No one is denying homology. It is duly noted throughout nature. But it is a failed argument.
If you could induce mutations in fruit flies and create bioluminescence, you would have an argument. All you have at this point is wishful thinking.
Except you can only assert it's a failed argument. You can never address the actual evidence or the content of our posts.

Quite literally, every single one of your posts is just a long-winded "NO IT ISN'T SO THERE!"

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#218 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
You cannot make any assumptions about a "design scenario" without invoking religious arguments as you how you assume a God would or would not conduct creation.
Hoots, this is you openly ADMITTING ID is creationism. Therefore it's not science.

In order for it to be considered AS science there HAS to be some assumptions or axioms for a hypothesis to be built around.

Since you can't, all your whining about IDC is utterly irrelevant. You can give up now. Although we already know you did already.
HTS wrote:
If you had enough knowledge to create a firefly, the most scientifically logical and direct method would be to start with a chemically-related compound such as a fat-metabolizing protein and go from there.
Why do you assume that an intelligent creator would pursue a scientifically illogical course?
Maybe it was easier for God to being with a fat metabolizing protein. When God created the woman, he began with the rib of Adam (DNA) rather than starting over from scratch. Doesn't that make logical sense.
The Adam and Eve story doesn't make logical sense at all.(shrug)

But tell me, why are you placing limits on an infinitely powerful deity? Your arguments are religious arguments and are therefore irrelevant to science.
HTS wrote:
If He already created a fat metabolizing enzyme that would suit his purposes, why start over for bioluminescence? My point is that you are making the grave error that almost all evolutionists make. You are engaging in the vain attempt to scientifically disprove God
No we're not. We're pointing out that evolution WOULD make use of the same components over and over again, but in a VERY SPECIFIC way - nested hierarchies.

Whether or not a "God" would do it that way, the theory itself makes no pronouncement on it.

But since you've admitted IDC is religion there's no reason to consider it.
HTS wrote:
Your elaborate explanations are merely interesting hunches. However, such proposals invariably fail to address the barriers that would preclude such a transmutation...such as the mechanisms as to how an insect controls the on and off switch of luminescence, and how such complex behaviors became in coded into its DNA. The observation that luciferase and a fat metabolizing protein appear chemically similar does not address the question as to how one could evolve into the other. Sheer luck? What are the probabilities involved. The repeated dogma of "mutations + millions of years" is not a scientific answer.
While you're repeating the dogma of "blind chance" when we're talking about non-random factors capable of creating new configurations out of existing material.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#219 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You cannot logically state that "design" would predict "all kinds of weird proteins with no tradable linkage to other persons rife across living organisms" ... That is an illogical philosophical assumption.
You have not actually demonstrated that proteins of similar structure can "easily" be explained by mutation and gene duplication. That is dogma, not science.
You have [quite skillfully] offered a persuasive hypothesis, and are expecting me to have faith in your intuitions. If you could actually mutate a fruitily and create a firefly, you would have something. Is that an unreasonable request? You think it happened without any intelligence. You said it's a simple transformation. What would it take for a team of genetic engineers to manipulate the chromosomes of a fruitily and create a firefly? You think it happened without any intelligence. Do you have any mathematical justification that millions of years is the panacea to overcome all obstacles to evolution?]
Design is not even a logical consideration as you've already admitted it's a religious concept.(shrug)

This means it can be ignored.

Explain orthology Hooter.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#220 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I have never denied homology. It is your philosophical interpretation of homology that I dispute.
You assume that it indicates common descent. That is a hypothesis that you cannot prove.
If anything has been "proven" it is that drosophila cannot evolve regardless of the tens of thousands of generations that have been observed in laboratory experiments. Hence, the suggestion that a drosophila could be selectively bred into a firefly is immediately scoffed at... Because it is impossible.
The Danio was genetically altered by INTELLIGENT DESIGN which required the insertion of a new gene through genetic engineering. How does that prove ANYTHING?
Our interpretation is not philosophical. Nested heirarchies are the logical outcome of evolution. It is YOUR philosophical assumption that a designer was necessary.

But now you have admitted that IDC is a religious concept anyway so it can be ignored.

Explain orthology Hooter.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#221 Mar 17, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>

If we simply waited for a mutation that produced a fluorescent version of the original gene...well, nature has millions of years up its sleeves, and we do not. I suppose we could calculate the odds of a similar mutation occurring on that gene if we know the basic mutation rate of the fruit fly, and therefore calculate how long it should take before that mutation would appear by chance. But we must stick with experiments that are practical today in our attempts to confirm or falsify our scientific theories. Whatever you say, the fact that the protein turned out to be closely related to existing ones must dramatically increase the odds that random mutation can explain it.
The odds that a firefly identical to today's fireflies could mutate from a fruit fly is vanishingly small given that there are many more differences than just the fluorescence. If we went back to the Cambrian and played evolution forward from then, the odds are that by today there would be a completely DIFFERENT flora and fauna every time we did it. That is inevitable given the random nature of mutations and the inherent unpredictability of complex systems.
You seem to have "preprogrammed directionality" so burned into your thinking that you cannot imagine how things work without it. But that is how evolution works, and so far nobody has come up with a evidence why that could not be the case.
Just to make that perfectly clear - there is no reason to believe that re-running evolution would produce mammals, simians, apes, humans, all over again. There are a million points of happenstance in that journey. Earth MIGHT produce another intelligent lifeform, but its not going to be some pointy-eared logical version of ourselves. That really is fantasy. It would be something completely different, if it happened at all.
So you cannot scientifically state that bioluminescence could evolve from a fat metabolizing protein... you just have a hunch that it can. It is not reasonable for you to assume that it can based on homology, because such a transformation has never been observed, even on a small scale. I know that you guys always hide behind the "millions of years" excuse, but you have not, as you alluded to, actually calculated mutation rates in fruitflies and considered what genetic changes would have to take place for such a phenomenon to appear. Typically, the only examples given in biology textbooks involve single nucleotide substitutions such as sickle cell trait or antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Those can occur by chance. However, that does not justify the belief that an entire gene could appear by chance, given millions of years...because the vast majority of traits are not defined by single nucleotides. You fail to acknowledge the complexity of traits such as bioluminescence because that would requirre you to accept huge improbabilities...such as the required co-evolution of instinctive behavioral changes to use the luminesence which would have been required.
You accuse intelligent design as being a "flabby" hypothesis,... yet you fail to realize that evolution can explain everything and predict nothing. It explains the evolution of altruism and nuturing in humans in terms of group selection, for the overall benefit of the species. Yet it also explains contradictory behaviors such as greed and infidelity as the result of competition for limited resources. It explains the development of complex image-forming eyes in cephalopods as a means of survival in a hostile environment, yet also predicts that a flatworm will maintain a photosensitive spot for hundreds of millions of years.
I'm aware that evolution is not directional. I was merely pointing out that fruitfly experiments have failed to produce ANY novel traits despite more generations and more individuals in laboratory experiments than the entire supposed evolution of man.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#222 Mar 17, 2014
HTS wrote:
You accuse intelligent design as being a "flabby" hypothesis
It's not even a hypothesis.

It's just flab.

With poop in it.
HTS wrote:
yet you fail to realize that evolution can explain everything and predict nothing.
Nested hierarchies - predicted.

Transitional fossils - predicted.

Functionality of new DNA - predicted.

Orthology - predicted.

Precambrian rabbit - prediction.

Crocolion - prediction.

Fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones - prediction.

.

Stop whining like a wuss and explain orthology Hooter.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 14 min 15th Dalai Lama 223,012
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Regolith Based Li... 83,153
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr marksman11 164,693
Tennepithecus ate a pescatarian diet. 13 hr Science 1
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 13 hr Eagle 12 - 135
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 15 hr Dogen 2,575
Evolution is boring as Hell 19 hr Eagle 12 - 11
More from around the web