Creation vs. Evolution II

[redfern]

Dear redfern,

I'm not rotting in any sewer. I just wanted to say Good Morning! I was looking for my post to gcthomas, and I finally found it here. So cool. I thought I lost it forever. Please check out the article I posted. I don't think you are atheist and even if you were, you might find it interesting. Okay, now I've really got to get to bed. It is 5:40 a.m. here. I'm a night owl, in case you didn't know.

To A Brother In Christ!!

Michael

Dear Michael,

Good Morn. Observing your history of posts shows that if anything even remotely might have relevance to ideas about God or the Bible, for you that instantly becomes proof of your religious beliefs. I have a bit higher threshold of proof.

 

[6days]

What I don't understand is why Redfern and/or gcThomas doesn't just say "So what if Darwin was rascist?"

*
Yes..... It's an interesting argument no matter which side of the aisle you sit on. *Ultimately though, the argument is not about the man himself, but the harm his ideas have done to people, and to science.

 

[6days]

I can’t help but see the hypocrisy of you and 6days and cohorts in focusing more attention on the personal weaknesses of scientists you want to discredit than you do on their science.

Haha... gcThomas might be surprised that you think he is my cohort. See page 3 where he is the one who brought Darwin into the discussion. *GC mentioned Darwin in response to this. "Genetic evidence supports the Biblical creation account. Geneticists wonder why with our high mutation rate we have not gone extinct. One very possible answer is because humanity has not been on earth near as long as common ancestry beliefs require.

Genetic evidence baffled evolutionists in the past showing all humanity is "one blood" as the Bible says. Women and black skin people are not less evolved than white males.

 

[redfern]

*
Yes..... It's an interesting argument no matter which side of the aisle you sit on. *Ultimately though, the argument is not about the man himself, but the harm his ideas have done to people, and to science.

It is also interesting that his Theory of Evolution is widely recognized as a valid, important, and integral part of science worldwide by industries, scientific organizations, and academia. Hate the man as you will, revile against the misuse of his ideas, yet his explanation for how life diversified stands tall and proud.

 

[6days]

It is also interesting that his Theory of Evolution is widely recognized as a valid, important, and integral part of science worldwide by industries, scientific organizations, and academia.

Hmmmmm ....and yet Biblical creationism is the cornerstone of modern biology. *Common ancestry is an idea that has not contributed to a single new technology...nor a single advancement in medicine.*

Perhaps what you are thinking, is how things like 'natural selection' ideas have contributed to science?*

Hate the man as you will, revile against the misuse of his ideas, yet his explanation for how life diversified stands tall and proud.

Hate Darwin... not a chance. I pity him. He was a brilliant observer, who seemed to sink into despair in his later years. I think that despair influenced his thoughts and ideas in his last books. Do I hate the harm Darwinism has done in our world?..absolutely!

 

[Jose Fly]

*Common ancestry is an idea that has not contributed to a single new technology...nor a single advancement in medicine.*

And you continue to repeat this falsehood, knowing full well it's false. That makes you a habitual, unrepentant liar.

 

[6days]

And you continue to repeat this falsehood, knowing full well*it's false. That makes you a habitual, unrepentant liar.

Jose...you are once again willingly forgetful. We have discussed your belief often, that common ancestry beliefs have helped science. The article / link discusses phylogenomic relationships. We have also discussed that several timea how Darwins tree idea has failed. The best explanation for similar genes performing similar functions in different creatures is a common designer.
Common ancestry beliefs have hurt people and hinders science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose...you are once again willingly forgetful. We have discussed your belief often, that common ancestry beliefs have helped science. The article / link discusses phylogenomic relationships. We have also discussed that several timea how Darwins tree idea has failed.

No, all that's taken place is after I post the paper describing how evolutionary common ancestry is used to discern genetic function, you respond with mindless nonsense like the above, which is nothing more than "Nuh uh".

Your reflexive "Nuh uh" does not negate actual documented science.

The best explanation for similar genes performing similar functions in different creatures is a common designer.
Common ancestry beliefs have hurt people and hinders science.

There is something fundamentally wrong with you. I've never seen anyone behave like this, where you apparently think endless repetition of talking points makes them become true.

 

[Jose Fly]

Look, for normal people this is a fairly simple question to answer. 6days is claiming that "Common ancestry is an idea that has not contributed to a single new technology...nor a single advancement in medicine."

Ok, how would we potentially falsify that claim? The answer is obvious....we present an example of evolutionary common ancestry contributing to technology or medicine, and if we find either the claim will have been proved false.

Now, why evolutionary common ancestry would contribute to technology is kind of a weird thing to ponder. Other than genetic algorithms, which are models of biological evolution used to generate solutions to things like engineering problems, I'm not sure how biological evolution would really even apply to "technology".

So that leaves us with seeing if evolutionary common ancestry has contributed to medical science. And as I've posted many times, THIS PAPER is a clear example of exactly that...

Protein Molecular Function Prediction by Bayesian Phylogenomics

Abstract

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.​

So there we have it...they developed a statistical model based on evolutionary relationships between a wide variety of organisms and applied it to genetic data. And even when that data was "sparse or noisy", the model still correctly identified genetic function to a 96% degree of accuracy. Unless you want to be so absurd as to argue that genetic function isn't at all relevant to medical science, the only conclusion (for normal people) is that evolutionary common ancestry has clearly and directly contributed to medical science.

Thus the claim that "Common ancestry is an idea that has not contributed to a single new technology...nor a single advancement in medicine" is demonstrably false, and no amount of mindlessly repetitious "No it isn't....no it isn't....no it isn't..." changes that.

At least that's how it works in the normal world.

 

[redfern]

Hmmmmm ....and yet Biblical creationism is the cornerstone of modern biology. Common ancestry is an idea that has not contributed to a single new technology...nor a single advancement in medicine.

I’m wondering how you know this. You must believe you are privy to the thought processes of every person who has advanced medicine in the past hundred years.

But I’ll go along with 6days' idea for a bit. Let’s think about medical training sans evolution, with Biblical medical knowledge substituted in the place of evolutionary understandings.

Students training in medicine take some general classes in biology. Now those classes will include instruction in how snakes can communicate with people utilizing human speech. Wow, just think how that is going to revolutionize biology – vocal cords are not really needed, the way we thought humans used muscles in the tongue and jaws and throat in forming audible sounds must have been misunderstood, cause that snake does fine without all of that stuff. And smart – why snakes can think through how to verbally entice people to do things they shouldn’t. Maybe being called a “snake in the grass” isn’t a put-down at all.

Donkeys? Students will study reports of donkeys that suddenly not only refuse to obey their masters, but actually argue with them, and win the argument. Cool.

Surfers suffering shark attacks? So what, heck, Jonah got completely swallowed and lived for several days inside, and came out pretty much unscathed.

When I am terminally ill, my 6days-trained doctor will assure me that after I die and start to stink, I very well might just get up and have dinner with my family and go back to work.

All men need to caution their wives that if the wives are disobedient, it makes perfect medical sense for them to instantly transform from living bones and tissue into a pillar of sodium chloride crystals.

The list goes on and on of the absurdities that are included in a claim that “Biblical creationism is the cornerstone of modern biology”. In fact no credible medical school in the world would stoop as low as 6days asks them to.

 

[patrick jane]

I’m wondering how you know this. You must believe you are privy to the thought processes of every person who has advanced medicine in the past hundred years.

But I’ll go along with 6days' idea for a bit. Let’s think about medical training sans evolution, with Biblical medical knowledge substituted in the place of evolutionary understandings.

Students training in medicine take some general classes in biology. Now those classes will include instruction in how snakes can communicate with people utilizing human speech. Wow, just think how that is going to revolutionize biology – vocal cords are not really needed, the way we thought humans used muscles in the tongue and jaws and throat in forming audible sounds must have been misunderstood, cause that snake does fine without all of that stuff. And smart – why snakes can think through how to verbally entice people to do things they shouldn’t. Maybe being called a “snake in the grass” isn’t a put-down at all.

Donkeys? Students will study reports of donkeys that suddenly not only refuse to obey their masters, but actually argue with them, and win the argument. Cool.

Surfers suffering shark attacks? So what, heck, Jonah got completely swallowed and lived for several days inside, and came out pretty much unscathed.

When I am terminally ill, my 6days-trained doctor will assure me that after I die and start to stink, I very well might just get up and have dinner with my family and go back to work.

All men need to caution their wives that if the wives are disobedient, it makes perfect medical sense for them to instantly transform from living bones and tissue into a pillar of sodium chloride crystals.

The list goes on and on of the absurdities that are included in a claim that “Biblical creationism is the cornerstone of modern biology”. In fact no credible medical school in the world would stoop as low as 6days asks them to.

You ignorant fool - you can't understand the supernatural things of God, you mock God

 

[redfern]

… Ultimately though, the argument is not about the man <Darwin> himself, but the harm his ideas have done to people, and to science.

Certainly that is one of your favorite hobby-horses. But for me, there is a more fundamental question, and that is whether or not the ToE is a valid explanation for the diversity of life we see. If I see Darwin as racist, does that falsify the ToE? Not one iota. If people have made erroneous judgments based on the ToE, that is a failure on the part of the people making the judgments, not a failure on explaining common descent. You (pretend you) want to deny scientific history because it has some ugly warts associated with it. I (and Dawkins) see evolution as a sometimes violent and unpleasant process, but that does nothing to change the fact that it occurred. Revisionist history simply because you don’t like it is a lie, plain and simple (except perhaps in your weird moral framework).

 

[redfern]

You ignorant fool - you can't understand the supernatural things of God, you mock God

Not at all. I simply don’t believe in your God, any more than you believe in Zeus. I suspect you don’t agonize much over your disbelief in hundreds of other Gods that are worshipped by other religions.

 

[Tattooed Theist]

No, you have not shown any research by Darwin that leads to the conclusion "there is a racial order and whites are at the top".

I'm sorry you feel that way, as I said though I don't enjoy repeating myself so I don't. I've explained it in previous posts if you care to look back, otherwise take care man

 

[Tattooed Theist]

I am not clear what you mean by Darwin’s “research”. In science (and I am sure in Darwin’s case) often there is considerable scientific research done before the crucial elements of the theory become clear. But once that happens, often the theory can be succinctly stated and verified independently of the original research that led to it. For Example, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity was the end result of years of struggling with new mathematics, new ways of looking at space and time, and some trial and error. Yet few cosmologists today master General Relativity that way, the path to understanding it is much more direct now (but still not trivial).

I have limited knowledge of the specific research Darwin did in coming to his Theory of Evolution, yet his theory now rests largely on two major concepts – the introduction of novel changes into a genome, and natural selection. I have no problems with embracing The Theory of Evolution with those as foundational elements. And I can assure you, I do not see racism as a necessary conclusion therefrom.

I think I know all my siblings, and I suspect you ain’t one of em.

Due to the sentence I've made red, I would suggest doing a little research on Darwin's findings and how they relate to racism and racism as a basis for his understandings and findings.
It's truly very interesting.

 

[redfern]

Due to the sentence I've made red, I would suggest doing a little research on Darwin's findings and how they relate to racism and racism as a basis for his understandings and findings.
It's truly very interesting.

Even if I were to find that racism on Darwin’s part was instrumental in him proposing the Theory of Evolution, that would only be an interesting (and somewhat disappointing) sidenote in the history of the theory. The Theory of Evolution has far transcended Darwin, just as most theories are clarified and extended by many people after they are first proposed. A biology student today could learn the Theory of Evolution without ever knowing anything about who first formulated it.

That is my interest – is the theory correct? That question is completely independent of any motivation that Darwin may have had. You seem to be afflicted with “6daysitis” – a malady that misleads you into thinking that discrediting Darwin somehow falsifies a well-established principle in science.

 

[6days]

But for me, there is a more fundamental question, and that is whether or not the ToE is a valid explanation for the diversity of life we see.

Pre-existing genetic information and mechanisms such as natural selection is a valid explanation for the diversity of life we see. (Biblical model)

I (and Dawkins) see evolution as a sometimes violent and unpleasant process, but that does nothing to change the fact that it occurred.

If you mean mutations, sickness, extinctions, disease and death then those are processes best explained within the Biblical model. Evolutionists are some what pseudo-scientific thinking those processes have creative powers.

Revisionist history simply because you don’t like it is a lie, plain and simple (except perhaps in your weird moral framework).

Not sure what you are referring to Redfern. Discussing how evolutionism has harmed scientific progress is not revisionist.

 

[6days]

....a malady that misleads you into thinking that discrediting Darwin somehow falsifies a well-established principle in science.

Nobody has suggested such a thing except you and Jose with your strawman arguments.

 

[6days]

Not at all. I simply don’t believe in your God, any more than you believe in Zeus. I suspect you don’t agonize much over your disbelief in hundreds of other Gods that are worshipped by other religions.

Your argument is typical of poorly designed atheist arguments.
There are no scientists, and no evidence suggesting Zeus created our universe. However, there is evidence and thousands of scientists suggesting our universe is consistent with the Biblical creator.

 

[redfern]

Nobody has suggested such a thing except you and Jose with your strawman arguments.

I will let your posts testify for themselves. But if you insist, I will gladly provide quotes from and links to multiple times you have focused on claims of racism, Nazis, etc in discussing the ToE.