Post Reply
Page 8 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Dinosaur National Monument
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 12:30AM #71
McAtheist
Posts: 8,254

iama:  All genetic entities are / can be subject to loss of information from various types of mutations.  Is that what you mean?  Loss of information is usually deleterious.


And all genetic entities are/can be subject to a GAIN of information from various types mutations and other evolutionary mechanisms, a fact which is necessary even for YECism: there is no other to get hundreds of alleles of a gene from the descendents of 8 people.


You YECs have been remarkably silent about that observed, verified and documented data set. Can you explain the increase from 16 alleles (maximum) to 2,000 alleles any other way except the addition of information, Iam?


If not, your argument just died a much-deserved death.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 1:40AM #72
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,674

May 1, 2012 -- 12:30AM, McAtheist wrote:



iama:  All genetic entities are / can be subject to loss of information from various types of mutations.  Is that what you mean?  Loss of information is usually deleterious.


McAtheist: And all genetic entities are/can be subject to a GAIN of information from various types mutations and other evolutionary mechanisms, a fact which is necessary even for YECism: there is no other to get hundreds of alleles of a gene from the descendents of 8 people.


You YECs have been remarkably silent about that observed, verified and documented data set. Can you explain the increase from 16 alleles (maximum) to 2,000 alleles any other way except the addition of information, Iam?


If not, your argument just died a much-deserved death.



iama: You, obviously, didn't take the time to digest the video, either.  If you really were interested in understanding this highly interesting portion of biology, you would take the time.


There are some interesting statements which this scientist makes, which makes me think that he is, actually, personally, supporting The Creation paradigm's KINDs with conserved core processes, but highly rich mechanisms which already exist in the remainder of the DNA - that which is the non-coding DNA, and which evolutionists were calling "junk DNA".


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:14AM #73
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

May 1, 2012 -- 1:40AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

There are some interesting statements which this scientist makes, which makes me think that he is, actually, personally, supporting The Creation paradigm's KINDs



Given your admitted penchant for re-writing science, and your demonstrated tendency to promote YECist pseudoscience, it's a pretty safe bet that either (1) the video was not relating science or (2) you have reinterpreted it to fit your beliefs.


In case (1) it would be a waste of time to watch, and in case (2) it would just tell us that the YECist creation myth is wrong.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:27AM #74
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

May 1, 2012 -- 11:14AM, d_p_m wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 1:40AM, iamachildofhis wrote:

There are some interesting statements which this scientist makes, which makes me think that he is, actually, personally, supporting The Creation paradigm's KINDs



Given your admitted penchant for re-writing science, and your demonstrated tendency to promote YECist pseudoscience, it's a pretty safe bet that either (1) the video was not relating science or (2) you have reinterpreted it to fit your beliefs.


In case (1) it would be a waste of time to watch, and in case (2) it would just tell us that the YECist creation myth is wrong.




Yup, I thought so.



For a quick overview, from the wikipedia article on facilitated variation. Note highlighted and or underlined sections.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Facilitated variation is a new theory that has been presented by Marc W. Kirschner, a professor and chair at the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart, a professor at the Graduate School, University of California, Berkeley.[1]


The theory of facilitated variation addresses the nature and function of variation in evolution. Recent advances in cellular and developmental biology in the light of evolutionary biology shed light on a number of mechanisms for generating novelty. While the concept and mechanism of natural selection is well understood, the variation component of the evolutionary theory remains under-developed. Variation mechanisms such as mutations, genetic drift, and genetic flow have been studied and documented thoroughly. The theory of facilitated variation is an effort to illustrate that seemingly complex biological systems can arise with a limited number of genes, and a limited number of variation mechanisms.


This is accomplished by exploring the relation between the genotype and phenotype, specifically:

  • How are changes in the genotype translated to changes in the phenotype?
  • Can environmental conditions affecting the phenotype affect the genotype?
  • Since selection operates on the phenotype, how can physiological adaptability affect selection?

The theory can be summarized in the following points:

  • Organisms have 'constrained' and 'deconstrained' variations of their phenotype. The constrained processes remain mostly unchanged but they allow 'deconstrained' processes to alter the phenotype without resulting in lethality.
  • The constrained elements are called "conserved core processes" that remain in stasis for perhaps millions of years and they endure little if any changes. These core processes, such as the processing of DNA and RNA, are created in rapid 'invention' periods (e.g. from prokaryotes to Eukaryotes), and are shared by all organisms.
  • The 'deconstrained' processes are those that change the amount, time, kind, and place of gene expression.
  • The 'conserved core processes' are linked via weak regulatory linkage, which is a loose mechanism for signal transcription. This mechanism facilitates new changes in how genes are expressed, thereby leading to variations in the phenotype which are selected upon. Furthermore, changes and combinations of these weak permissive signals can give rise to new novel functions on the structural and molecular level.
  • Exploratory processes have the ability to generate many different phenotypical outcomes or states given a limited number of genes. A few of these states are selected for their physiological adaptability in their respective environmental conditions. For example, the vascular system expands to regions with insufficient oxygen supply. There is no predetermined genetical map for the distribution of blood vessels in the body, but the vascular system responds to signals from hypoxic tissues. Exploratory processes are powerful because they provide organisms with a tremendous adaptation scope.

In the classical Darwinian view, a large number of successive mutations, each selected for its usefulness to the survival of the organism, is required to produce novel structures such as wings, limbs, or the brain. Alternatively, facilitated variation asserts that the physiological adaptability of core processes and properties such as weak linkage and exploratory processes enable proteins, cells, and body structures to interact in numerous ways that can lead to the creation of novelty with a limited number of genes, and a limited number of mutations.


Therefore, the role of mutations is often to change how, where, and when the genes are expressed during the development of the embryo and adult.


The theory challenges Irreducible complexity by explaining how mutation can cause unusual changes within a species. They explain how the individual organism can change from a passive target of natural selection, to a central player in the 3-billion-year history of evolution. By closing the major gap in Darwin’s theory Kirschner and Gerhart also provide a scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who champion "intelligent design".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





In other words, mechanisms have evolved to make the most efficient use of the variation provided by mutation in exploring evolutionary pathways.


In yet other words, evolution is an even more powerful process than Darwin supposed.


The above pretty much guarantees that you did not take from the video the meaning intended by Prof. Kirschner, but 'fixed up' the science in your own understanding until it fit with your own myths and pseudoscience.


Another YEC FAIL.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 16, 2012 - 7:25AM #75
EarthScientist
Posts: 3,448

Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:28PM, EarthScientist wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 4:14PM, 57 wrote:


Apr 27, 2012 -- 3:54PM, Midutch wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 4:29PM, 57 wrote:

in fact this this helps confirm a flood.


Uh ... yeah.


A RIVER flood.


.


.


.


And this helps your argument how?




Do you think noahs flood was an instant flood?  NO. First it was localized floods, then it grew.


Come on my evo-friends...get with the program.




So you're saying we can assign the rocks that compromise the formations of Dinosaur National monument to early flood?





Still absolutely zero details on the flood 'model' eh?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 24, 2012 - 3:59PM #76
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,674

May 1, 2012 -- 11:27AM, d_p_m wrote:



iama:  There are some interesting statements which this scientist makes, which makes me think that he is, actually, personally, supporting The Creation paradigm's KINDs.


d_p_m: Given your admitted penchant for re-writing science, and your demonstrated tendency to promote YECist pseudoscience, it's a pretty safe bet that either (1) the video was not relating science or (2) you have reinterpreted it to fit your beliefs.


In case (1) it would be a waste of time to watch, and in case (2) it would just tell us that the YECist creation myth is wrong.


Yup, I thought so.



For a quick overview, from the wikipedia article on facilitated variation. Note highlighted and or underlined sections.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Facilitated variation is a new theory that has been presented by Marc W. Kirschner, a professor and chair at the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, and John C. Gerhart, a professor at the Graduate School, University of California, Berkeley.[1]


The theory of facilitated variation addresses the nature and function of variation in evolution. Recent advances in cellular and developmental biology in the light of evolutionary biology shed light on a number of mechanisms for generating novelty. While the concept and mechanism of natural selection is well understood, the variation component of the evolutionary theory remains under-developed. Variation mechanisms such as mutations, genetic drift, and genetic flow have been studied and documented thoroughly. The theory of facilitated variation is an effort to illustrate that seemingly complex biological systems can arise with a limited number of genes, and a limited number of variation mechanisms.


This is accomplished by exploring the relation between the genotype and phenotype, specifically:

  • How are changes in the genotype translated to changes in the phenotype?
  • Can environmental conditions affecting the phenotype affect the genotype?
  • Since selection operates on the phenotype, how can physiological adaptability affect selection?

The theory can be summarized in the following points:

  • Organisms have 'constrained' and 'deconstrained' variations of their phenotype. The constrained processes remain mostly unchanged but they allow 'deconstrained' processes to alter the phenotype without resulting in lethality.
  • The constrained elements are called "conserved core processes" that remain in stasis for perhaps millions of years and they endure little if any changes. These core processes, such as the processing of DNA and RNA, are created in rapid 'invention' periods (e.g. from prokaryotes to Eukaryotes), and are shared by all organisms.
  • The 'deconstrained' processes are those that change the amount, time, kind, and place of gene expression.
  • The 'conserved core processes' are linked via weak regulatory linkage, which is a loose mechanism for signal transcription. This mechanism facilitates new changes in how genes are expressed, thereby leading to variations in the phenotype which are selected upon. Furthermore, changes and combinations of these weak permissive signals can give rise to new novel functions on the structural and molecular level.
  • Exploratory processes have the ability to generate many different phenotypical outcomes or states given a limited number of genes. A few of these states are selected for their physiological adaptability in their respective environmental conditions. For example, the vascular system expands to regions with insufficient oxygen supply. There is no predetermined genetical map for the distribution of blood vessels in the body, but the vascular system responds to signals from hypoxic tissues. Exploratory processes are powerful because they provide organisms with a tremendous adaptation scope.

In the classical Darwinian view, a large number of successive mutations, each selected for its usefulness to the survival of the organism, is required to produce novel structures such as wings, limbs, or the brain. Alternatively, facilitated variation asserts that the physiological adaptability of core processes and properties such as weak linkage and exploratory processes enable proteins, cells, and body structures to interact in numerous ways that can lead to the creation of novelty with a limited number of genes, and a limited number of mutations.


Therefore, the role of mutations is often to change how, where, and when the genes are expressed during the development of the embryo and adult.


The theory challenges Irreducible complexity by explaining how mutation can cause unusual changes within a species. They explain how the individual organism can change from a passive target of natural selection, to a central player in the 3-billion-year history of evolution. By closing the major gap in Darwin’s theory Kirschner and Gerhart also provide a scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who champion "intelligent design".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





In other words, mechanisms have evolved to make the most efficient use of the variation provided by mutation in exploring evolutionary pathways.


In yet other words, evolution is an even more powerful process than Darwin supposed.


The above pretty much guarantees that you did not take from the video the meaning intended by Prof. Kirschner, but 'fixed up' the science in your own understanding until it fit with your own myths and pseudoscience.


Another YEC FAIL.



iama:  Do you realize how much FAITH is being expressed in your, above, comment?


- "mechanisms have evolved"  What is your evidence?


- "variation provided by mutation" Facilitated Variation was not about "mutations" / loss of DNA information!


- "exploring evolutionary pathways" What do you mean by "evolutionary pathways"?


-  "evolution is an even more powerful process" K & G described "facilitated variation" which took place because of already existing mechanisms.  Yes, the process is POWERFUL, but it was designed by the same Creator-God for all life-forms!


-  "the meaning intended by Prof. Kirschner" I take the recordings given by K & G as observational science data which they have gleaned from their scientific research!  Yes, the authors gave their report an evolutionary spin, but their scientific observations can be taken by creationists as supporting special creation of all life-forms, having been designed with core processes which are conserved, and facilitated variation which takes place within the originally created KINDs, by design of their Creator-God. The evolution-proponents do not OWN the scientifically gathered DATA!  What exists and what actually takes place within all life-forms is the reality, and it belongs to that which is TRUE!


- "but 'fixed up' the science in your own understanding until it fit with your own myths and pseudoscience"  There is no need for Creationists to "fix up" anything!  What actually exists is what is biblical! Each and every life-form reproduces "after his / their KIND, expressing observational variation, always, within their own KIND of life-form."


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 24, 2012 - 4:20PM #77
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

May 24, 2012 -- 3:59PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

I take the recordings given by K & G as observational science data which they have gleaned from their scientific research!  Yes, the authors gave their report an evolutionary spin, but their scientific observations can be taken by creationists as supporting special creation of all life-forms, having been designed with core processes which are conserved, and facilitated variation which takes place within the originally created KINDs, by design of their Creator-God.




Right. You completely failed to understand the K&G scientific work.


If it doesn't fit your assumptions, you won't understand it. And almost all real science does not fit your assumptions.


www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/fe...

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 24, 2012 - 5:59PM #78
iamachildofhis
Posts: 10,674

May 16, 2012 -- 7:25AM, EarthScientist wrote:



57: in fact this this helps confirm a flood.


Midutch: Uh ... yeah.


A RIVER flood.


.


.


.


And this helps your argument how?


57: Do you think noahs flood was an instant flood?  NO. First it was localized floods, then it grew.


Come on my evo-friends...get with the program.


EarthScientist: So you're saying we can assign the rocks that compromise the formations of Dinosaur National monument to early flood?

EarthScientist: Still absolutely zero details on the flood 'model' eh?



iama:  It all depends upon which presupposition-glasses you are choosing to view the scientifically gathered data by:



A receding Flood scenario for the origin of the Grand Canyon



The earth: how old does it look?



Old-earth or young-earth belief



Ancient Forest Frozen in Time by Volcano


.

The wonder of Christmas is that the God Who dwelt among us, now, can dwell within us. - Roy Lessin
.
"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."
.
Justice is receiving what you deserve.
Mercy is NOT receiving what you deserve.
Grace is receiving what you DO NOT deserve.
.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 24, 2012 - 7:48PM #79
d_p_m
Posts: 9,983

Once again, your citations prove that YECs are incapable of getting dating science right.


Of course. Because if you did, you'd get the right answers, and you don't want the right answers, you want the other answers.


So YECs assume that helium will build up in the atmosphere, ignoring the fact that it is in equilibrium.


And they assume that elements will build up in the oceans, ignoring the fact that calculations based on current inflows without paying attention to processes removing them give 'ages' ranging from a few thousand to hundreds of millions of years, depending on the element.


And they ignore radiometric dating because it blows all of their claims about the age of things out the window, offering weird ideas like variations in decay rate, when that is constant.


In short, YECs almost invariably apply uniformatarian assumptions to non uniform processes, and non-uniformatarian assumptions to uniform processes, getting it wrong both ways.


Way to go, YECs.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."

― Niels Bohr



"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 24, 2012 - 7:55PM #80
McAtheist
Posts: 8,254

iama:  It all depends upon which presupposition-glasses you are choosing to view the scientifically gathered data by


No, it actually doesn't.


There is no known physical process that allows a year-long flood to produce the sedimentary layers of the real world ---- remember the Haymond beds in Texas that would require a new, differentiable layer of sediment to be deposited every 10 minutes?  As this is a violation of everything we know about how these kinds of sediments form, there is no rational presupposition that would honestly lead to the YEC model for these formations.


There is no known physical process that allows flood water to perfectly sort all the drowned dinosaurs from all the drowned "modern" animals and humans.  As your own RATE researchers reported, there is no known physical process that explains the evidence of 500 millions years of radioactive decay if only 6000 years elapsed.  There is no know physical explanation for why light from stars billions of light-years distant from us is visible now on Earth if the universe is only 6000 years old.  There is no known biological process that allows a pair of ark "kinds" to reproduce and diversify rapidly enough to populate the post-flood world fast enough to fit human art and history.  There is no known physical process to allow for the formation of mountain ranges like the Himalayas in the last 4000 years.  There is no known physical process that allows for the multiple advances and retreats of major glaciers in the 4000 years post-flood.  Et., etc., etc.


YECism is strongly contradicted by all the major branches of science.  In order to buy into YECism, it is necessary to check your rational brain at the door, discard everything humans know about the world around them and embrace a set of completely unsupported fairy tales.  The fact that you think this kind of surrender to fantasy is a viable alternative to mainstream science, Iam, simply indicates how unqualified you are to judge anything about science in general.


YECism is a broken, discredited collection of nonsense stories held together by the emotional needs of its proponents --- let's trashcan it and move on.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 13  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook