/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design



Alphadude
11-03-2009, 09:25 PM
:sl:

Found this while surfing the net tought share it here:shade:







The ‘Mechanism’ Behind Intelligent Design

I am providing this information in hopes that some way can
be found to use it in the battle against the atheistic,

Darwinian concept of evolution which has destroyed so much
of the original spiritual nature of human society, and help to
bring the attention of the people of the world back to the
increasingly obvious fact that God (Allah) created this
universe and everything in it. I was many years ago a
university professor with a background in theoretical
physics, but am now quite old and dying of cancer. I want to
do whatever I can before I leave this world to help humanity
come back from the disaster of secular materialistic belief to
a God-centered, spiritual world.

Intelligent design is a modern variation of the very
successful “Watchmaker Argument” for the existence of God.

This argument essentially says if you see a watch, which is
quite a complicated mechanism with lots of parts that must
act perfectly in harmony then you can be sure that watch did
not come to exist by chance, and that it must have been
designed and created by a watchmaker. Therefore if we look
at the incredibly complicated universe with a virtually
infinite number of parts all acting in perfect harmony then
we can be sure it did not come to exist by chance, and that
it must have been designed and created by a “Universe
Maker”, who could be no other than God.

I can see in the current trend toward the acceptance of
‘intelligent design’ a movement toward a more accurate,
objective understanding of God as our Creator. There was a
time when science seemed to be the enemy of religious
belief - that time is no more! Modern physics and cosmology
(science of the origin and development of the universe) now
provide firm objective evidence of the existence of God,
confirm the primary attributes of God, and show how God
created the physical existence out of ‘nothingness’. This
knowledge comes from a critical analysis of the ‘Big Bang’
theory, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, and work
being done in quantum physics. The concepts behind this
esoteric scientific knowledge can now be presented in such
a way as to be understood by any person with a modern
education and necessarily should become known by all. I
would predict that it will not be too long until the position
of atheism is considered to be scientifically naïve, logically
nonsensical, and philosophically embarrassing.

My presentation of these facts may not be in exactly the
theological language you might prefer, but this is not the
time to quibble over differences in form. It is the acceptance
of the basic truth of God’s existence and His role as Creator
of the physical universe and everything in it that is critical.

Although intelligent design is a powerful argument against
atheistic, Darwinian evolutionist ideas I think the one area
of weakness in intelligent design is that it does not yet
offer the ‘mechanism’ by which God did (or at least could)
create the universe and fashion each of the progressive
stages in the development of the matter of the universe,
including biological life. Believe me, the atheistic
evolutionists will be quick to exploit this perceived weakness.

The following is an example of the kind of attack that
intelligent design will face until the ‘mechanism’ by which God’s creative process takes place is offered.

“Intelligent Design, which has some claim to being based on hard evidence, remains woefully short on the required specifics. We are told that some unknown but all-powerful entity created, or rather designed life as we know it. How? And, in what way? Don't ask. Just take their word for it.” - From an article in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin
newspaper.


I will have to be exceedingly brief in this explanation since many books could be written on this most important and complex subject, so I will leave it to you to have these facts checked by scientists of your acquaintance, although I have already verified the facts with other scientists to my own satisfaction.

Allah revealed to us in the Qur’an that He created the physical universe out of nothingness, the Christian Bible presents a very similar version of the creation of the physical existence through Light, and I believe other religions also hold somewhat analogous views. This is confirmed by modern cosmologists who must now acknowledge the physical existence had a beginning from complete nothingness (no time, no space, and no matter) and at a singularity ‘Light’, a fair non-technical name for the full spectrum of photons of electromagnetic radiation, came into existence. This intense Light energy resulted in the creation of matter in the form of sub-atomic particles; of primary importance to us were the protons, neutrons, and electrons, the basic building blocks of all that now exists in the physical universe. Additionally, as a side effect of the creation of material particles was the simultaneous appearance of space and time.

This provides our first opportunity to see Light as the interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical existence. These sub-atomic particles were sometime later transformed into atomic nuclei and the various atoms (all the different elements which still exist today). When asked why the sub-atomic particles joined together into the more complex arrangements of nuclei and atoms science answers that it is due to the ‘electromagnetic force’. This electromagnetic force is carried out through an exchange of photons (Light energy). According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is about the ‘special’ characteristics of Light, photons of Light energy do not show any of the three necessary characteristics to be part of the physical universe. They do not have mass, they do not occupy volume of space, and they are not involved in the flow of time; therefore, Light maintains non-material characteristics, once again indicating its nature as an interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical universe.

From a religious point of view what I would say is happening is that we see how God, acting in an orderly and lawful manner, did command the necessary sub-atomic particles to join together into certain relationships we call nuclei and atoms. The ‘electromagnetic force’ is only the name science has put on these orderly, lawful workings of God as He goes through this early stage of the Creation. It appears God does this by sending Light as the messenger to carry information regarding His commands to the various sub-atomic particles and telling them how it is His Will that they relate to each other in this new, more complex manner. Here we begin to see the ‘mechanism’ missing from the intelligent design argument by which God’s Will is carried out in the physical existence.

We see exactly the same process taking place later in the development of the physical universe when various atoms begin relating to other atoms in another step toward greater complexity and becoming the various molecules, as in the simple example when two hydrogen atoms are joined with one oxygen atom to form a molecule of water. Once again science now knows that only certain atoms will form relationships with certain other atoms and the information as to which atoms can and should join with other atoms is determined by another exchange of photons (Light energy). Light again being the messenger from the non-physical (spiritual) existence telling the created matter how to carry out its role in the development of the physical universe. God’s Will is commanded to the atomic structures by the messengers of Light. This appears to be the ‘mechanism’ by which God transforms simple atoms into the various molecules of increasing complexity all the way up through the amino acids, and proteins to the highly complex DNA molecule.

Importantly, we see that God does not at each new stage of material complexity (sub-atomic particles, atoms, and molecules) create anew; He commands the rearrangement of the previous simpler stage into the next more complex stage. And to move from one stage to another in increasing complexity, God each time appears to use the ‘mechanism’ of Light as a messenger to transmit His Will from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the various material forms of the physical universe.

At the sub-atomic, the atomic, and the molecular levels of material development science is clearly able to understand how the changes taking place are due to the information passed on through an exchange of photons of Light energy. Unfortunately, as we reach the next level of complexity, which is the progression from the molecular stage to the stage of biological life, the plants and animals, the process becomes so complex that from science we are as yet unable to fully perceive all that takes place to make that step. But through logic, extrapolation, and preliminary scientific findings we may fairly and rightly assume that it is only reasonable that the same method was used as in the earlier stages of progressive development. So we would expect that by an exchange of photons (Light energy) between the molecular entities existing at that time information was passed telling the various molecules involved to relate to each other in such a manner that a new level of material complexity is achieved, that being the simplest forms of biological life.

When God decides the time is right to create biological life He commands that His Will be done and sends messengers of Light from the spiritual existence to the physical universe instructing the necessary molecular forms He had already created to join together in the new, more complex relationship of simple biological life. These simple biological life forms are then made up of the even simpler material forms, the atoms and molecules, from the surrounding environment which are instructed by photons of light energy from a DNA type molecule to form themselves into the new, more complex relationship of biological life. Here we see the same ‘mechanism’ being used as in all the previous stages of creation.

Now we can begin to understand the ‘mechanism’ behind the final stages of increasing material complexity as God transforms simple biological life forms into all the more complex plants and animals we see in the world today. Beginning with the first simple forms of biological life which God had already created He now only has to send messages by Light from the non-physical (spiritual) existence to the physical world commanding that His Will be carried out and that all the necessary more complex forms of plant and animal life must come to be. These changes from one stage to another, from the simple to the more complex, require only slight alterations in the overall structure of the DNA molecule. These small structural changes in the DNA molecule are determined by information transmitted by photons (Light energy) to the atomic structures making up the DNA molecule, instructing them to move into slightly different arrangements in one or more small areas of the long and complex structure of the overall DNA molecule. The combined effect of these small structural changes to the DNA molecule are sufficient to bring about any desired modifications in the next progressively complex physical form to be expressed (all of the various plants and animals) which are required by God to facilitate the continued unfolding of the physical creation according to His Plan.
Through this new knowledge we now have a scientifically verifiable ‘mechanism’ by which God could have created the physical universe from nothing in the beginning of time. Conveniently, information transmitted through Light energy also provides the ‘mechanism’ by which God could have directly commanded the creation of all the different increasingly complex stages and forms of matter which we find today throughout the physical universe, including all forms of biological life. It will be very difficult, I believe impossible, for the Godless evolutionists and atheistic scientists to successfully argue against this understanding of God’s Plan for Creation.

Of course do not only take my word for this, verify what I have said with reputable scientists sympathetic to the cause of intelligent design, and use these ideas in any way and with whatever words you find most comfortable to help bring the world’s people to the knowledge that God does indeed exist, that He created the entire physical existence, and that He created us for a special place in His Grand Plan. This could be the beginning of the end for secular materialism and atheism, and the beginning of a future world fully recognizing its spiritual nature and glorifying God through peace and love.



SOURCE
http://www.islamic-world.net/intldes.php
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Trumble
11-03-2009, 09:44 PM
You do know that

According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is about the ‘special’ characteristics of Light, photons of Light energy do not show any of the three necessary characteristics to be part of the physical universe. They do not have mass, they do not occupy volume of space, and they are not involved in the flow of time; therefore, Light maintains non-material characteristics, once again indicating its nature as an interface between the non-physical (spiritual) world and the physical universe.
is complete twaddle, don't you? If the author was a "a university professor with a background in theoretical physics" I'm the President of the United States.
Reply

JaffaCake
11-04-2009, 01:43 AM
The only accurate thing in that post is the newspaper quote in the middle.

Why do so many Muslims think that lying is going to convince us that Islam is true?

The constant stream of pseudo-scientific nonsense is an insult to the intelligence of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
Reply

The_Prince
11-04-2009, 01:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
The only accurate thing in that post is the newspaper quote in the middle.

Why do so many Muslims think that lying is going to convince us that Islam is true?

The constant stream of pseudo-scientific nonsense is an insult to the intelligence of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
wow what a strong rebuttal from you, accusing the person of being a liar without actually giving any refutation or evidence to counter what the other side has said.

also to counter your claim on Muslims, why do so many atheists think that poisoning the well and attacking the opponent and acting all superior etc makes the opponent wrong and atheism right. i mean if i could have a penny for everytime an atheist insults the intellect of his opponent i would be rich!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
The_Prince
11-04-2009, 01:57 AM
atheists ask what are the specifics to design and life, go read the Quran, Allah gives the specific details of how he created humanity, and go read the hadiths for more detail.

as for the creation of the universe, go read the Quran as well as it gives details on this issue, as well as the hadiths.

as for the creation of animals, the Quran doesnt give the specific details of how they were created because the info isnt that important on how they were created, the Quran was revealed for mankind, not the animal kingdom, im sure if the Quran had been revealed for animals then it would describe their creation in detail just as it did with mankind.

but lets go to you atheists, how about you explain it to us, OH RIGHT, you cant! you only explain your evolution process but fail to answer and tell us the most important issue, HOW DID IT START, WHAT STARTED IT, atheists have jumped to the process of how life go to where it is now, yet cant tell us why or how it truly began, hey it just happened to be our lucky day. so according to the atheist view your supposed to believe that long ago by chance we dont know how, life simply emerged from this planet, again we dont know how or why, and then eventually this life went through evolution and took us to where we are now, again, we dont know how, or why, meaning it had no reason and no intent, but just happened.

yes, now that makes lots of sense, and this is leaving out the universe as well and how it got started!
Reply

Afg
11-04-2009, 02:19 AM
As much proof as you give to an Atheist, some of them still ask for proofs. You give them but they are asking again. It's like they want to see God with their eyes. But if that were to happen, the whole world would be Muslim anyway, so where is the point then..
Reply

Ramadhan
11-04-2009, 03:43 AM
I often think it's pointless to debate with atheists.
Allah SWT has given everyone al-'aql (intelligence) to know that we are created, and it is up to us whether we want to use it. So there will be no one soul in the judgement day who could argue that they did not know.

imo, it is also self-defeating to argue for our faith using pseudo-science as it will be easily deconstructed piece by piece by the non-believers.
Reply

Alphadude
11-04-2009, 05:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
atheists ask what are the specifics to design and life, go read the Quran, Allah gives the specific details of how he created humanity, and go read the hadiths for more detail.

as for the creation of the universe, go read the Quran as well as it gives details on this issue, as well as the hadiths.

as for the creation of animals, the Quran doesnt give the specific details of how they were created because the info isnt that important on how they were created, the Quran was revealed for mankind, not the animal kingdom, im sure if the Quran had been revealed for animals then it would describe their creation in detail just as it did with mankind.

but lets go to you atheists, how about you explain it to us, OH RIGHT, you cant! you only explain your evolution process but fail to answer and tell us the most important issue, HOW DID IT START, WHAT STARTED IT, atheists have jumped to the process of how life go to where it is now, yet cant tell us why or how it truly began, hey it just happened to be our lucky day. so according to the atheist view your supposed to believe that long ago by chance we dont know how, life simply emerged from this planet, again we dont know how or why, and then eventually this life went through evolution and took us to where we are now, again, we dont know how, or why, meaning it had no reason and no intent, but just happened.

yes, now that makes lots of sense, and this is leaving out the universe as well and how it got started!
there is no atheist here so who are you pointing to?
Reply

Ramadhan
11-04-2009, 09:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by khalid84
there is no atheist here so who are you pointing to?
I think The prince's post was in response to Trumble's, who by the way is an atheist.
Reply

aamirsaab
11-04-2009, 09:42 AM
:sl:
Next time, when you make a post with 1000 lines, can you put in some line spacing? It's very difficult to read a wall of text that size on the internet.
Reply

JaffaCake
11-04-2009, 11:17 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
wow what a strong rebuttal from you, accusing the person of being a liar without actually giving any refutation or evidence to counter what the other side has said.
If I started a thread saying that before the Prophet had his first revelation he was a member of the Ferrari Formula 1 pit crew, would you bother providing evidence against it?

I do love how you assume what he said is the truth, without evidence, whereas I must provide evidence to show he is wrong.
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
also to counter your claim on Muslims, why do so many atheists think that poisoning the well and attacking the opponent and acting all superior etc makes the opponent wrong and atheism right.
I don't. Several dozen lines of absolute gibberish make my opponent wrong, I didn't have to do anything at all.
Reply

Alphadude
11-04-2009, 01:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
I think The prince's post was in response to Trumble's, who by the way is an atheist.
sorry my bad didnt see that

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl:
Next time, when you make a post with 1000 lines, can you put in some line spacing? It's very difficult to read a wall of text that size on the internet.
aamirsaab the post has been edited and added some spaces between the lines and bigger text:D
Reply

Eliphaz
11-04-2009, 02:03 PM
Author anyone?

Why oh why do people copy paste articles when there is no credible source? Basics people, basics.

I am not a scientist so I can't validate any of these claims.
Reply

The_Prince
11-04-2009, 04:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by khalid84
there is no atheist here so who are you pointing to?
jaffacakis the atheist.
Reply

JaffaCake
11-05-2009, 01:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
but lets go to you atheists, how about you explain it to us, OH RIGHT, you cant!
"I don't know how it happened, therefore God did it" is a ridiculous argument and it poses just as much a problem to you as it does anyone else.

Think about what sort of evidence you would accept as proof of life starting without God or the the universe beginning without God. Apply that to your own beliefs. Do you have that kind of evidence?

I'm actually interested as to what evidence would convince you that the universe (or life) was not created by God.
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
you only explain your evolution process but fail to answer and tell us the most important issue, HOW DID IT START
If you accept that evolution has been explained, do you still believe the part of Islam that says humans and animals were created?
Reply

tetsujin
11-06-2009, 08:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
atheists ask what are the specifics to design and life, go read the Quran, Allah gives the specific details of how he created humanity, and go read the hadiths for more detail.

as for the creation of the universe, go read the Quran as well as it gives details on this issue, as well as the hadiths.

as for the creation of animals, the Quran doesnt give the specific details of how they were created because the info isnt that important on how they were created, the Quran was revealed for mankind, not the animal kingdom, im sure if the Quran had been revealed for animals then it would describe their creation in detail just as it did with mankind.

but lets go to you atheists, how about you explain it to us, OH RIGHT, you cant! you only explain your evolution process but fail to answer and tell us the most important issue, HOW DID IT START, WHAT STARTED IT, atheists have jumped to the process of how life go to where it is now, yet cant tell us why or how it truly began, hey it just happened to be our lucky day. so according to the atheist view your supposed to believe that long ago by chance we dont know how, life simply emerged from this planet, again we dont know how or why, and then eventually this life went through evolution and took us to where we are now, again, we dont know how, or why, meaning it had no reason and no intent, but just happened.

yes, now that makes lots of sense, and this is leaving out the universe as well and how it got started!

Intelligent design is not science, this was proven in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

The “successful” watchmaker argument is a rehash of the argument from design put forth by William Paley*. This was refuted by David Hume who pointed out the flaws of the argument, and this was all done before Darwin and before natural selection was combined with evolution to form the theory known in his day.

You cannot use purposefully designed objects such as watches or paintings as analogues to naturally occurring objects, you are begging the question by having known creators analogous to unknown creators. We know what humans create, the whole point of theological argument is to provide evidence for the ultimate creator.

You then have two parts to this argument. The argument from complexity stating that the natural world is far too complex to have any origin other than a purposefully designed origin, and then you need to provide evidence that this designer is not complex (otherwise your argument refutes the independent existence of your own designer) and that this designer exists.

We have evidence that simple processes can theoretically produce complex forms and structures. All we need to do is provide a functional process that can demonstrate how life could have evolved on its own. Whether you choose to believe that god exists and that god directed evolution towards a specific goal is your choice. Evolution can stand on its own, and does not require a supernatural creator.

What people don’t realize is that saying or admitting that we do not know the answer to a question does not give the questioner a license to make up whatever theory they would like. Well actually, nothing stops you from making up theories, but in order to be intellectually honest sometimes "I don’t know yet" is the best answer.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.

Cosmology has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.

All the best,


Faysal


* Edit: As pointed out, William Paley's argument from design was published in his Natural Theology 25 years after Hume's death. However, it is still common to contrast Paley's argument with Hume's refutation to illustrate the common points in discussions today.

Thank you czgibson
Reply

Alphadude
11-06-2009, 08:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
"I don't know how it happened, therefore God did it" is a ridiculous argument and it poses just as much a problem to you as it does anyone else.

Think about what sort of evidence you would accept as proof of life starting without God or the the universe beginning without God. Apply that to your own beliefs. Do you have that kind of evidence?

I'm actually interested as to what evidence would convince you that the universe (or life) was not created by God.
If you accept that evolution has been explained, do you still believe the part of Islam that says humans and animals were created?
how can u say the universe was not created by Allah what more evidence you need ? the more some 1 explains to atheist the more they ask its better leave this matter as it is and close this thread.:threadclo
Reply

tetsujin
11-06-2009, 08:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by khalid84
how can u say the universe was not created by Allah what more evidence you need ? the more some 1 explains to atheist the more they ask its better leave this matter as it is and close this thread.:threadclo
What evidence has anyone presented? I'm really am curious. There are plenty of people who will be glad to examine it objectively.



All the best,


Faysal
Reply

Raphael
11-06-2009, 09:02 PM
Intelligent design....

that could quite possibly be the shortest joke! After "stationary shop moves".

But "dwarf shortage" still takes the biscuit!

When a Muslims studies evolution from a science book, and understands the significance of endogenous retro viruses, and begins to have doubts in their head - to read this grossly deficient hogwash! This is genuinely what plants seeds of disbelief - believing that religion does not have an answer!

The difference in quality between real science and creationist science, is the difference between Shakespeare at his best, and a drunken chav.

This kind of "science" is intended for people with zero scientific background. Anyone who is remotely in the loop, knows that things like the "watchmaker argument" was annihilated to non existence. You will struggle to find a creationist who will talk about the "watchmaker", without an embarrassed smile come upon their face.

Yes it is possible to be a Muslim, and still reject this pseudo science twaddle. These arguments do nothing to prove the existence of a creator, and turn away anyone with half a brain.
Reply

Woodrow
11-06-2009, 09:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
"I don't know how it happened, therefore God did it" is a ridiculous argument and it poses just as much a problem to you as it does anyone else.
Why is that a problem? Can not a mere human engineer concieve haw to build a three prong left handed blivet and then build such if he has the materials. So why is it any less to think that Allaah(swt) can build both the design and the building material? The thoughts of Allaah(swt) do have the solidity of what we call matter, when he choses for it to be.

Quite simply us humans can not do what Allaah(swt) does. Our inability to duplicate what Allaah(swt) does is no indication he did not create all things. I am not capable of doing heart surgery, does that mean if I believe heart surgeons do not exist is valid?
Reply

Raphael
11-06-2009, 09:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Why is that a problem? Can not a mere human engineer concieve haw to build a three prong left handed blivet and then build such if he has the materials. So why is it any less to think that Allaah(swt) can build both the design and the building material? The thoughts of Allaah(swt) do have the solidity of what we call matter, when he choses for it to be.

Quite simply us humans can not do what Allaah(swt) does. Our inability to duplicate what Allaah(swt) does is no indication he did not create all things. I am not capable of doing heart surgery, does that mean if I believe heart surgeons do not exist is valid?
Salamualikum Woodrow,

I have to disagree with you on this one occasion. Not understanding how something happens is not a justification on pinning it to a supernatural cause. People believed that thunder was caused because of God's wrath a few thousand years ago!
Reply

tetsujin
11-06-2009, 09:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Why is that a problem? Can not a mere human engineer concieve haw to build a three prong left handed blivet and then build such if he has the materials. So why is it any less to think that Allaah(swt) can build both the design and the building material? The thoughts of Allaah(swt) do have the solidity of what we call matter, when he choses for it to be.

Quite simply us humans can not do what Allaah(swt) does. Our inability to duplicate what Allaah(swt) does is no indication he did not create all things. I am not capable of doing heart surgery, does that mean if I believe heart surgeons do not exist is valid?
The ontological argument has been refuted as well. If god was simply a matter of intuition, there is nothing to stop us from imagining Laplace's demon as god, or whatever else we have thought of in our thousands of years in existence.

The ability to construct an idea, in and of itself, does not serve as its proof, unless you presume god is merely a mathematical equation thus being true in a trivial sense.

All the best,


Faysal
Reply

aamirsaab
11-06-2009, 09:43 PM
:sl:
The problem I have with evolution without God is that this thought process relies on ridiculously low percentage chances of occuring (the exact number is something like 0.0000001 to the power of i forgot because it's so bloody long). Everything just becomes a statistical insignificance and IMO if you can swallow those amount of numbers after the decimal point, I don't see how not only can that not be considered a miracle but additionally you can reject God completely from the equation.

To put it into perspective; the neccessary conditions for humans to evolve to what we are today as many nations capable of advanced theorems, thoughts and thousands of advancements throughout the ages HAS NOT OCCURED on any other planet in our solar system. Yes bacteria has been found on mars, but so what? We're like 1000 lifeforms ahead of that!

In fact, Earth is the only planet capable of having such a system due to its proximity to the sun. Now, unless you again subscribe to the notion of no God, we have probability rearing it's ugly head into the mix. And by now that 0.x to the power of whatever, just multiplied a dozen or so times. Again, if you can swallow that amount of numbers after a decimal point - how can you, in your heart of hearts, completely reject God from the equation?
Reply

Woodrow
11-06-2009, 09:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
Salamualikum Woodrow,

I have to disagree with you on this one occasion. Not understanding how something happens is not a justification on pinning it to a supernatural cause. People believed that thunder was caused because of God's wrath a few thousand years ago!
Very good point.

Also the converse is true, not believing in a supernatural cause is not a justification on pinning it to a material cause.

Yes, for most of what we see can be measured, qualified and shown to be cause for physical events. There is no questioning or should not be, of that. But, the question that can not be answered in physical terms is the existence of the physical things, not how they function.
Reply

tetsujin
11-06-2009, 10:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
:sl: The problem I have with evolution without God is that this thought process relies on ridiculously low percentage chances of occuring (the exact number is something like 0.0000001 to the power of i forgot because it's so bloody long). Everything just becomes a statistical insignificance and IMO if you can swallow those amount of numbers after the decimal point, I don't see how not only can that not be considered a miracle but additionally you can reject God completely from the equation.
Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with? But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.
To put it into perspective; the neccessary conditions for humans to evolve to what we are today as many nations capable of advanced theorems, thoughts and thousands of advancements throughout the ages HAS NOT OCCURED on any other planet in our solar system. Yes bacteria has been found on mars, but so what? We're like 1000 lifeforms ahead of that!
I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe. We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.

Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way. If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?


All the best,


Faysal
Reply

aamirsaab
11-06-2009, 10:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with?
Up to you.

But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.
Our existence is a result of evolution to from as far as we can tell the highest point - this is what the staunch evolutionists are saying. As I said before no other planet in our solar system has evidence of evolution. To which one can respond that's because of their proximity of the sun making it (near) impossible for the neccessary climate and conditions to do so - again brinigng us back to probability and chance of things happening to fall into place....

I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe.
You are missing my point. I am not talking about overall importance to the universe.

We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.
Let's try dealing with one planet at a time because this is becoming nonsensical. Deal with what is i.e human evolution on this planet. It's something we can actually gauge and have a meaningful discussion on.

Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way.
I'm not arguing against evolution entirely - just the fact that some people remove God from the equation, which I find rather ignorant.

If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?...
You are misunderstanding my position: I accept the theory of evolution. However, this does not mean God is automatically removed from the equation; there are far too many variables that have to be accounted for - ascribing them to mere chance and probability (at such a ludicrously low number at that!) yet at the same time outright deny the existence and/or involvment of God seems kind of silly to be honest.
Reply

Chuck
11-06-2009, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Welcome to a universe of large numbers. How many planets on how many stars in how many galaxies would you like to work with? But that's not as relevant as the presumption you've made that our existence was the sole purpose towards which evolution was working. If we were sitting here with three ears instead of two we'd think ourselves just as lucky to be here making ridiculous calculations of our statistical insignificance.

I was not aware that bacteria had been found on mars. That would be significant indeed, because once again evolution doesn't state we are of prime importance in this universe. We happen to be one of the immeasurable number of species that have existed. All the events in this universe will seem statistically unlikely, and that will largely depend on what you understand to be the functional purpose of the universe.

Moreover, if there was life on each and every planet, that would not help or hurt evolution in any way. If there was life on each and every planet, does that impact your acceptance of evolution or of a creationist origin theory?


All the best,


Faysal
Evolution is not about how life began.
Reply

tetsujin
11-07-2009, 12:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
You are misunderstanding my position: I accept the theory of evolution. However, this does not mean God is automatically removed from the equation; there are far too many variables that have to be accounted for - ascribing them to mere chance and probability (at such a ludicrously low number at that!) yet at the same time outright deny the existence and/or involvment of God seems kind of silly to be honest.
I'm sorry, and you're right, I didn't understand your position. How are you calculating these probabilities? Where does god fit in your opinion?

format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck
Evolution is not about how life began.
I don't think we disagree, in case I wasn't clear in the previous post I'll quote myself from an earlier post.

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.

Cosmology has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of evolution. It’s a different field of science.

All the best,


Faysal
Reply

Raphael
11-07-2009, 12:39 AM
So as far as what I am reading here, no one has a problem with evolution, but just its cause?

Surely even the strongest advocate has to accept that unguided evolution is slightly far fetched?
Reply

tetsujin
11-07-2009, 12:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
Surely even the strongest advocate has to accept that unguided evolution is slightly far fetched?
Which part of evolution is far fetched?


All the best,


Faysal
Reply

Trumble
11-07-2009, 03:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
Surely even the strongest advocate has to accept that unguided evolution is slightly far fetched?
Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it; something infinitely more complex that mysteriously just popped into existence or has somehow always existed. In terms of the numbers, God doesn't solve anything; something supposedly improbable is just replaced by something even more improbable.

But let's look at numbers again. There are something like 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone; that's something like 75 for each man, woman and child alive on earth. And there are estimated to be around 80 to 125 billion galaxies in the universe. We are into the realms of total guesswork, of course, but let's assume one in ten of those stars has a planet with the potential to support life of some sort, and that in one in ten of those the simplest type of life gets started at some point in the planet's history. Let us further assume, as you seem to concede, that the evolutionary mechanism does indeed exist. It therefore has something like 400 billion billion chances over the course of 13 billion years or so to come up with a species intelligent enough to be theorizing about how they came into existence. I'm not seeing any 'ludicrously low' numbers. They are in terms of one particular planet, but in the context of our own that is totally meaningless; it's like asking a lottery winner what the chances are that they have won the lottery. Those odds are of course, 1:1.

What puzzles me is why, in debates like this, so many theists focus on a rejection of evolution in the face of all the evidence (of which there is truly a vast quantity). The 'case for God' is much stronger IMHO, if still far from convincing, when put in terms of 'anthropic fine-tuning' of physical constants, yet those arguments (which have considerably more support from real scientists of theistic persuasion) are ignored. I guess that's the power of popular culture.

What also puzzles me is why the idea of an evolutionary process designed by God is dismissed by so many who believe there is a God. Surely the design of a process that, once started, produces exactly what is required with further intervention is much more what one would expect of God than either some flawed version of evolution that needs constant 'tinkering' in the form of ID, or continuous 'creation' over the years to add or remove a species here or there? It makes no sense to reject the most elegant solution.
Reply

Raphael
11-07-2009, 03:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it;
There is a lie in quoting statistical probabilities from large numbers. Given the random way that meteors collide with each other, and the sheer number of cosmic debris out there, then there quite possibly is a meteor that is a carbon copy of Michelangelo's David.

Now should one come crashing down to earth, we could take the random chance argument, but really!

As far as the fine tuning aspect is concerned, the strong anthropic principle does a great deal in explaining the constants, so why would they be thrown up repeatedly, especially since most people simply would not understand the mathematics involved?

Even a complete moron can pick up the most advanced medical textbook and read away happily - after all, it is nothing more than fancy souped-up terminology, but the vast majority of the population would fall at the first sign of elementary mathematics in Physics (I'm not talking about high school Physics).

There is a difference between the people who swallow the creationist science garbage that are promoted on Harun Yahya type websites, and those that understand the methodology of evolution. I did not challenge evolution per se, but rather only one aspect. There is no evidence to directly support random mutation, and if there is, then please feel free to enlighten me...
Reply

tetsujin
11-07-2009, 03:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
There is no evidence to directly support random mutation, and if there is, then please feel free to enlighten me...
Are you asking for evidence of mutations or for evidence of their randomness?


All the best,


Faysal
Reply

aamirsaab
11-07-2009, 03:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Nowhere near as 'far fetched' as the existence of something to 'guide' it; something infinitely more complex that mysteriously just popped into existence or has somehow always existed. In terms of the numbers, God doesn't solve anything; something supposedly improbable is just replaced by something even more improbable.
Evolution cannot explain the proximity of earth in relation to the sun that ALLOWS for evolution to occur on xyz planet (in this case, Earth). The only answer to that (without using God) is a percentage chance ergo life is a statistical insignificance.

.....Let us further assume, as you seem to concede, that the evolutionary mechanism does indeed exist. It therefore has something like 400 billion billion chances over the course of 13 billion years or so to come up with a species intelligent enough to be theorizing about how they came into existence. I'm not seeing any 'ludicrously low' numbers. They are in terms of one particular planet, but in the context of our own that is totally meaningless; it's like asking a lottery winner what the chances are that they have won the lottery. Those odds are of course, 1:1.
I was talking about the context of this solar system - to date, only Earth has any real evidence of evolution. To use your lottery example; the probability of anyone person winning the lottery is no where near 1:1 (even then, that still has to factor in at least 10 more variables)

I'll repeat, I don't negate the theory of evolution. Just that without God (at least acting as an instigator in terms of prerequisites for evolution to occur i.e a planet capable of natural sustenance due to its proxmity to the sun!), all life is a statistical insignificance. If you can swallow that pill (and somehow still reject miracles and God), you might as well throw a dice to decide all your actions in real life and spend all your money on the slots!
Reply

Trumble
11-07-2009, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
There is a lie in quoting statistical probabilities from large numbers. Given the random way that meteors collide with each other, and the sheer number of cosmic debris out there, then there quite possibly is a meteor that is a carbon copy of Michelangelo's David.

Now should one come crashing down to earth, we could take the random chance argument, but really!
I'm not making any 'random chance' argument; evolution by natural selection is, by definition, NOT random whether elements of the mechanism by which it takes place are or not. It is, however, obvious that if evolution by natural selection is acknowledged the chances of an intelligent species evolving increase proportionate to the number of planets on which life occurs.
Reply

Fishman
11-07-2009, 03:50 PM
:sl:
Found this while surfing the net tought share it here

If you found an icky jellyfish whilst surfing you wouldn't share it here, so why post annoying articles written by some 2-bit wanna-be genius instead?
Reply

Raphael
11-07-2009, 05:35 PM
I'm not making any 'random chance' argument; evolution by natural selection is, by definition, NOT random whether elements of the mechanism by which it takes place are or not. It is, however, obvious that if evolution by natural selection is acknowledged the chances of an intelligent species evolving increase proportionate to the number of planets on which life occurs.
Mutation is essential in the evolutionary mechanism. A mutation which both gives survival benefits for an organism, while yet being possible through chance is in fact random.....

Are you asking for evidence of mutations or for evidence of their randomness?
Evidence for randomness...


If you found an icky jellyfish whilst surfing you wouldn't share it here, so why post annoying articles written by some 2-bit wanna-be genius instead?
Absolutely!
Reply

tetsujin
11-08-2009, 07:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
Evidence for randomness...
I'm not sure what I'm arguing for/against. If there were a pattern for the mutations how exactly would you recognize that? Are we counting the intervals between certain sets of genes duplicating, deleting or transposing? How could we classify it as non-random?

If random mutations exist, a lack of selective pressures for a particular phenotype would result in the eventual decay of the genetic code responsible for producing that particular phenotype. Would you agree on that?

Perhaps we can use genes for our olfactory receptors (ORs). We have, in our DNA, the genes for many more ORs which are not active due to the lack of selective pressures. As we evolved from a nocturnal species, and gained the usage of our eyes (light detection), we required fewer receptors for detecting food and predators by smell. I'm sure we'll agree that using visual queues rather than odours would be more efficient during the daytime. Those ORs genes are there by many series of duplication and modifications which were beneficial at some point.

If we can agree on that, the steps required to have random mutations work towards the organisms benefit are just as easy to understand. The selective pressures from an organisms environment result in predictable phenotype drifts, which are a result of the genes. That is not to say we expect a particular order for the genetic mutations, but that the overall result would be to satisfy the demands of natural selection as best as possible.

I hope I'm on the right track in this explanation. Let me know if I misunderstood your concern.

All the best,


Faysal
Reply

Trumble
11-08-2009, 09:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Evolution cannot explain the proximity of earth in relation to the sun that ALLOWS for evolution to occur on xyz planet (in this case, Earth). The only answer to that (without using God) is a percentage chance ergo life is a statistical insignificance.

I was talking about the context of this solar system - to date, only Earth has any real evidence of evolution. To use your lottery example; the probability of anyone person winning the lottery is no where near 1:1 (even then, that still has to factor in at least 10 more variables)
Sorry, I missed this earlier. The probability of a lottery winner having won the lottery is precisely 1:1, it is a certainty. Note the tense, as it is that situation we are talking about 'in the context of this solar system'. The relevant probability is therefore not that of life arising in one particular solar system, but in ANY solar system, including as many variables as you like. But our own solar system had no significance above that of billions of billions of others until life did arise here, hence there is no 'statistical insignificance'. If life was going to happen at all it had to happen somewhere, and obviously the question could only be discussed where it did!
Reply

Chuck
11-08-2009, 04:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Sorry, I missed this earlier. The probability of a lottery winner having won the lottery is precisely 1:1, it is a certainty. Note the tense, as it is that situation we are talking about 'in the context of this solar system'. The relevant probability is therefore not that of life arising in one particular solar system, but in ANY solar system, including as many variables as you like. But our own solar system had no significance above that of billions of billions of others until life did arise here, hence there is no 'statistical insignificance'. If life was going to happen at all it had to happen somewhere, and obviously the question could only be discussed where it did!
Probability for winning a lottery depends on number of tickets in the lottery. If there are 1 billion tickets then there is 1 to billion. If a winner wins a lottery in 1/billion probability then the winner would be considered lucky. I guess we are lucky ones.:statisfie

But there is another issue. In lottery even if there is 1/billion probability, somebody has to be a winner, because that what lottery is meant for. And that is why there is 1/billion probability. So looking at this as analogy, life meant to emerge in this Universe? just a thought.
Reply

czgibson
11-08-2009, 04:33 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
The “successful” watchmaker argument is a rehash of the argument from design put forth by William Paley. This was refuted by David Hume who pointed out the flaws of the argument, and this was all done before Darwin and before natural selection was combined with evolution to form the theory known in his day.
Just to clarify: David Hume did indeed write a convincing refutation of the argument from design, but he did it before Paley's "watchmaker" argument appeared. Paley included it in his 1802 work Natural Theology, over 25 years after Hume's death.

Peace
Reply

Trumble
11-08-2009, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck
Probability for winning a lottery depends on number of tickets in the lottery. If there are 1 billion tickets then there is 1 to billion. If a winner wins a lottery in 1/billion probability then the winner would be considered lucky. I guess we are lucky ones.:statisfie
Nope. Because there are no 'unlucky' ones... in this lottery only the winner gets to play (retrospectively), because the only 'prize' is existence itself.

But there is another issue. In lottery even if there is 1/billion probability, somebody has to be a winner, because that what lottery is meant for. And that is why there is 1/billion probability. So looking at this as analogy, life meant to emerge in this Universe? just a thought.
Exactly my point, although just as with the lottery (where players pick what they hope will be winning numbers), there would also have been a possibility of there being no winner. The only relevant probability is of life emerging somewhere. It is nonsensical to consider the probability of it arising in a particular solar system rather than another as, until it does arise, there is absolutely nothing to distininguish one solar system from another, at least in this context.
Reply

Chuck
11-09-2009, 12:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Nope. Because there are no 'unlucky' ones... in this lottery only the winner gets to play (retrospectively), because the only 'prize' is existence itself.
You are not making sense, you need to explain more.
Reply

Trumble
11-09-2009, 01:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Chuck
You are not making sense, you need to explain more.
I'll try, but I'm probably just repeating myself.

The mistake is in considering the odds of the emergence of life in a particular solar system. That simply is of no relevance at all as there is no reason to distinguish one solar system from another until life happens to emerge in one or more of them. The relevant probability, therefore, is not that of the future emergence of life in the Sol system (before it actually did emerge) as there is no reason to prefer the Sol system to any other, but of the emergence of life in any solar system anywhere. It makes no sense to talk of 'us' being lucky or unlucky.. the most you can do is apply those terms in some sort of anthropomophic way to stars or planets. It's only in the 'lucky' systems where intelligence can exist to have this debate.

To think about it another way, let's look into our future and imagine we are exploring the nearest star systems to our own. We would need to be extraordinarily lucky (or maybe unlucky!) to find life in, say, Epsilon Eridani or Delta Pavonis. But they are two drops in a very large ocean, one of maybe 400 billion billion stars with planets. If, in some way, we could search all of those for life, how 'lucky' would we need to be to find it somewhere?
Reply

Afg
11-09-2009, 02:29 AM
For all who don't believe, please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4C-j...layer_embedded
Reply

tetsujin
11-09-2009, 03:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


Just to clarify: David Hume did indeed write a convincing refutation of the argument from design, but he did it before Paley's "watchmaker" argument appeared. Paley included it in his 1802 work Natural Theology, over 25 years after Hume's death.

Peace
Thank you for the correction, you are right :D.


format_quote Originally Posted by Afg
For all who don't believe, please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4C-j...layer_embedded
The points raised in that video have been discussed elsewhere and are not relevant to this thread.

All the best,


Faysal
Reply

JaffaCake
11-09-2009, 02:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The problem I have with evolution without God is that this thought process relies on ridiculously low percentage chances of occuring (the exact number is something like 0.0000001 to the power of i forgot because it's so bloody long).
Salaam, a question for you aamirsaab.
Where did you find such a number and what leads you to believe it is accurate? It seems very unlikely to me that anyone could accurately quantify such an occurrence, especially when nobody knows what actually happened.

Secondly, are we talking about the probabilities of creating life exactly as it is, or are there other possible solutions? For example, if we assume that life started off with a self-replicating peptide, how many possible sequences of amino acids are there that will be self-replicating? I don't think that anyone would even pretend to know the answer to that question.

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Evolution cannot explain the proximity of earth in relation to the sun that ALLOWS for evolution to occur on xyz planet (in this case, Earth). The only answer to that (without using God) is a percentage chance ergo life is a statistical insignificance.
This isn't as useful as it might appear. Yes, there is a relatively narrow habitable zone around stars where life such as ours could emerge. The problem with that is it doesn't take into account any other possible forms of life that might be possible. If we found that life could emerge in liquid ammonia or almost boiling sulphuric acid (these have been considered feasible), then the habitable zone would suddenly be very large.
Reply

Raphael
11-09-2009, 03:12 PM
JaffaCake - Were aamirsaab not to use the word 'God', and replace it with some unknown, undiscovered process for guided mutation - would this seem more feasible? I have always though that showing some kind of guiding process - some unknown law as a reasonable conclusion, is much more practical than trying to prove God's will and nature.

Gravity was "discovered" in the sense that we are able to describe a process, without fully understanding why it occurs. It is nice to think of gravity as the bending of space-time, but since general relativity and quantum physics are both strong explanations, and yet incompatible we have to just wait until a grand unifying theory comes along.

If I rejected faith, I would find it hard to reject an unseen force whose effects I can clearly see around me.


cogito ergo sum

René Descartes
Reply

Trumble
11-09-2009, 07:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
JaffaCake - Were aamirsaab not to use the word 'God', and replace it with some unknown, undiscovered process for guided mutation - would this seem more feasible?
It might if you remove the word 'guided', but including it just begs the question. Nobody describes gravity as a force that 'guides' the movement of objects.
Reply

aamirsaab
11-09-2009, 07:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Salaam, a question for you aamirsaab.
Where did you find such a number and what leads you to believe it is accurate? It seems very unlikely to me that anyone could accurately quantify such an occurrence, especially when nobody knows what actually happened.
The percentage chance of the first genetic material capable of successfully adapting to an environment and reproducing and then repeating this for several hundred cycles, factoring adaptation to adverse weather, viruses, mutations and so on and so forth.

Secondly, are we talking about the probabilities of creating life exactly as it is, or are there other possible solutions? For example, if we assume that life started off with a self-replicating peptide, how many possible sequences of amino acids are there that will be self-replicating? I don't think that anyone would even pretend to know the answer to that question.
Go with what we know, that way we can quantify and gauge and have a meaningful discussion.

This isn't as useful as it might appear. Yes, there is a relatively narrow habitable zone around stars where life such as ours could emerge. The problem with that is it doesn't take into account any other possible forms of life that might be possible. If we found that life could emerge in liquid ammonia or almost boiling sulphuric acid (these have been considered feasible), then the habitable zone would suddenly be very large.
To date, no life forms exist on any other planet in our solar system. Earth by sheer and utter luck landed in the right spacial zone allowing for an environment that didn't change TOO quickly, so that a species COULD adapt thus ultimately evolve into what we are today. I consider that to be a very slim chance of happening. 9 planets, all but one uninhabitable DUE to its proximity to the Sun.

Edit: I'm not talking about guiding the evolution process, I'm talking about the initial environment that was adaptable. If the environment is too extreme, a species (especially the very FIRST in line) cannot adapt quick enough (even if it was capable of doing so, this again raises the issue of probability and luck). Earth is the only planet in our solar system that can sustain life and the only ''reason'' for this is (without using God card) a probability or statistic that it landed in the exact perfect spot (i.e proximity to sun was pinpoint). So we're either an extremely lucky species or there's someone behind the scenes.

EDIT 2: Again, I'm not discounting evolution by any means.
Reply

Raphael
11-09-2009, 07:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
It might if you remove the word 'guided', but including it just begs the question. Nobody describes gravity as a force that 'guides' the movement of objects.
You missed my point. Gravity has an effect which we can observe. No one says objects with sufficient mass attracts other objects by a random process, similar to say - positive mutation - which is a random process according to the present model.

We simply do not understand gravity, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I'm not quite saying God is dipping his hands in the creation process. I'm just arguing for some similar law which "attracts" positive mutation....
Reply

tetsujin
11-10-2009, 12:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
You missed my point. Gravity has an effect which we can observe. No one says objects with sufficient mass attracts other objects by a random process, similar to say - positive mutation - which is a random process according to the present model.

We simply do not understand gravity, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. I'm not quite saying God is dipping his hands in the creation process. I'm just arguing for some similar law which "attracts" positive mutation....
Was my explanation helpful? Do you agree that mutations are random and that evidence for its randomness can be found?

Natural Selection

There are no particular "positive" mutations. We have to dissociate the concept of agency from this process. The law which you are asking for is natural selection itself.

The history of this planet is within each organism that has 'lived' here. Those of us that were able to pass on our genes are the only ones here to asses anything in retrospect.

The process of evolution doesn't guarantee anything to anyone. Most people know that many hundreds* of species are now extinct, or on the verge, and that can only be credited to their failure to adapt to the environment.

In retrospect, it would be nice if we still had a great sense of smell, and if we could still produce vitamin C within our body, if our laryngeal nerve was not looped around our heart for a ridiculous detour, and if our ribcage and backbone was designed for upright walking as well. The adaptations which gave us the attributes we have today are a result of mutations whether positive or negative. It is the environment with pushes the organisms least capable of reproducing towards death. What you have left are the successful candidates for the next round. What would be a positive attribute long ago may not be one later on, that itself is the mark left by the lack of an agency.

If there were an agency to guide evolution, it's done a remarkably poor job.


All the best,


Faysal


*many millions probably, but the average person can usually only name about a dozen.
Reply

جوري
11-10-2009, 12:37 AM
what mutations have caused evolution? do you have a name for them and a mechanism of action? mutations are identified we have loads of molecular biology and genetic books about them, you may google some of them 'frameshift, missense, nonsense' to name a few, can you show me how one or any have caused speciation?

how does natural selection explain Trinucleotide repeat expansion why do you collectively peddle the same crap over in an attempt to sound intelligent, but mum at best when it comes to mechanism of action? I mean isn't that what is missing from the 'God of the Gaps' story, why don't you fill the gaps with sound science? as well explain the motive and end result?
Reply

جوري
11-10-2009, 01:04 AM
BTW just as an addendum though I don't have the time to labor over anatomy and physiology with alleged 20 year olds..

there are two laryngeal nerves, the recurrent and superior, both branch off the vagus nerve along with 11 other branches, in its path as a (large highway) that branches into byways, it is responsible for varied tasks as heart rate, gastrointestinal peristalsis, sweating, muscle movements in the mouth, speech and breathing just to name a handful of functions.. perhaps in your mind no thought went into that up one day 'adaptation' or 'nature' decided I need to speak, let's innervate this part, I need to breathe let's innervate that part, I need to control my heart rate let's innervate this part, who knows.. but if I am going to complain, I'd like a few clarifications.

1- How did 'nature' do it? which part happened first or did it all happen at once? did it one day decide hmm without control over my heart rate, I'll die so let me take care of that first, and then woops I forgot about mean arterial pressure, woops today I forgot about vascular resistance, let me take care of that, woops, I need to breathe let me take care of my tidal volume today, woops, what about my total lung capacity and residual volume.. etc etc etc etc etc
2- How would you do it better?
3- can you in fact by said 'magical' mutations manipulate it now to do it better I mean hey you've survived without god and 'nature' ain't perfect, so why don't you perfect it?


all the best!
Reply

czgibson
11-10-2009, 11:27 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
how does natural selection explain Trinucleotide repeat expansion
You bring this up a lot. Can you explain (or do you have a link that explains) why this is seen as such a big problem for evolution?

Peace
Reply

جوري
11-10-2009, 03:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


You bring this up a lot. Can you explain (or do you have a link that explains) why this is seen as such a big problem for evolution?

Peace
as many times as you've asked I have gone ahead and explained it (use the search feature).. question remains why the lot of you keep speaking of 'mutations' and 'Natural selection' with utmost generalities and fail to touch upon mechanism of action? Isn't that what it all comes down to to combat the ignorance of the 'God of the gaps?'..
the basic tenets of your religion aren't scientifically reproducible nor stable.. until such a time you cross your T's and dot your I's, I too don't understand why you bring this (mutations/natural selection) 'alot' can you rectify how it is the solution for evolution?

all the best!
Reply

Alphadude
11-10-2009, 09:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
what mutations have caused evolution? do you have a name for them and a mechanism of action? mutations are identified we have loads of molecular biology and genetic books about them, you may google some of them 'frameshift, missense, nonsense' to name a few, can you show me how one or any have caused speciation?

how does natural selection explain Trinucleotide repeat expansion why do you collectively peddle the same crap over in an attempt to sound intelligent, but mum at best when it comes to mechanism of action? I mean isn't that what is missing from the 'God of the Gaps' story, why don't you fill the gaps with sound science? as well explain the motive and end result?
im sure they cant and btw i never tought the thread will get this many comments lol
Reply

czgibson
11-10-2009, 09:29 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
as many times as you've asked I have gone ahead and explained it (use the search feature)..
If you type the word 'trinucleotide' into the search engine, only one thread comes up - this one. If you search for posts, you get the two posts on this page where it's mentioned.

Are you sure there isn't a link you could provide that explains why this phenomenon is such a problem for evolution? I've never seen you explain it, and everything I can find about it on the internet seems to be in conformity with evolution.

Peace
Reply

جوري
11-10-2009, 09:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by khalid84
im sure they cant and btw i never tought the thread will get this many comments lol
people are often fervent when their religion is being attacked at its very core..try as they may atheists too are subject to the human condition!

the question shall always remain though.. how does evolution (if it were the proper unraveling of events) explain the origin of life?


:wa:
Reply

Raphael
11-10-2009, 09:40 PM
Abiogenesis is a different topic...

Evolution is simply a lie invented by Satan and the Zionists to control us all. I read that somewhere, and the guy sounded very intelligent, and thoroughly convincing.
Reply

جوري
11-10-2009, 09:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


If you type the word 'trinucleotide' into the search engine, only one thread comes up - this one. If you search for posts, you get the two posts on this page where it's mentioned.

Are you sure there isn't a link you could provide that explains why this phenomenon is such a problem for evolution? I've never seen you explain it, and everything I can find about it on the internet seems to be in conformity with evolution.

Peace
I remember us having this conversation before and I have labored over a reply (I have a photographic memory) you need not have things highlighted to you as an actual defect to make another implausible.. that is in fact what separates free thinkers from conformists ...

Natural selection allegedly results in only those best adapted tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.. well in trinucleotide repeat expansion unstable and defective genes increase and repeat count with each successive generation. I remember distinctly going through huntington's and fragile X to name a few.

How is that in conformity with natural selection? Please read everything I have written as I have written it, not the selective parts and espouse them all into one big mess!

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-10-2009, 10:12 PM
Why would Huntington's not fit with evolution? Most sufferers don't have any of the detrimental symptoms until long after they've reached sexual maturity and been able to pass on their genes. In most cases it would have no effect at all on their 'fitness' to reproduce.
Reply

JaffaCake
11-10-2009, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
The percentage chance of the first genetic material capable of successfully adapting to an environment and reproducing and then repeating this for several hundred cycles, factoring adaptation to adverse weather, viruses, mutations and so on and so forth.
Yes but what are the numbers and where did you get them?

format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I consider that to be a very slim chance of happening. 9 planets, all but one uninhabitable DUE to its proximity to the Sun.
There are about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe, you reckon some of them might have planets in a similar situation?
Reply

جوري
11-10-2009, 10:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Why would Huntington's not fit with evolution? Most sufferers don't have any of the detrimental symptoms until long after they've reached sexual maturity and been able to pass on their genes. In most cases it would have no effect at all on their 'fitness' to reproduce.

We are discussing natural selection not your 30 second google search!
Reply

aamirsaab
11-10-2009, 10:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Yes but what are the numbers and where did you get them?
1 in 10 ^33 from this dude

And I'm aware of the criticism oh this is after the event. I'm not arguing that it was impossible to occur - just that if we take that number seriously, we're an extremely lucky species. I'm also aware that not all species have a 1 in 10 ^ 33 chance of evolving (some are less) - but that very first piece of genetic material had to have been extremely lucky to live long enough to adapt to its surroundings (or the surroundings must have been at the right temperature that was capable of sustaining that initial life form - either way, luck is involved).


There are about 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the visible universe, you reckon some of them might have planets in a similar situation?
Maybe, who knows. Like I said earlier tho, let's try and deal with our solar system. Otherwise, I will be forced to use my Chewbacca defense and this conversation will quickly become retarded.
Reply

czgibson
11-10-2009, 11:14 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I remember us having this conversation before and I have labored over a reply (I have a photographic memory)
You've mentioned your memory skills many times. As I'm sure you'll recall. :p

you need not have things highlighted to you as an actual defect to make another implausible.. that is in fact what separates free thinkers from conformists ...
Unfortunately, I can't make any sense of that. How many sentences have there been in your post so far?

Natural selection allegedly results in only those best adapted tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.. well in trinucleotide repeat expansion unstable and defective genes increase and repeat count with each successive generation. I remember distinctly going through huntington's and fragile X to name a few.
So the genes are surviving. Where is the problem? If these diseases don't affect the chances of an individual reproducing and passing on genes, I don't see how this is connected to natural selection.

How is that in conformity with natural selection? Please read everything I have written as I have written it, not the selective parts and espouse them all into one big mess!
'Espouse'? Try to write clearly rather than exotically. Using flashy vocabulary incorrectly impresses nobody.

Peace
Reply

Raphael
11-10-2009, 11:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I will be forced to use my Chewbacca defense and this conversation will quickly become retarded.
Please tell me the Chewbacca defense, pretty please! Its being used in almost every other thread I've read on this forum, and I just can't put my finger on it!
Reply

Fishman
11-10-2009, 11:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
Please tell me the Chewbacca defense, pretty please! Its being used in almost every other thread I've read on this forum, and I just can't put my finger on it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


You've mentioned your memory skills many times. As I'm sure you'll recall. :p
so what is the problem with you? selective recall?


Unfortunately, I can't make any sense of that. How many sentences have there been in your post so far?
That isn't something I can remedy, I can't teach you science!


So the genes are surviving. Where is the problem? If these diseases don't affect the chances of an individual reproducing and passing on genes, I don't see how this is connected to natural selection.
is that what natural selection is about in your mind? reproduction? or superior genes selected and passed down?



'Espouse'? Try to write clearly rather than exotically. Using flashy vocabulary incorrectly impresses nobody.

Peace
Indeed, espouse as to conjoin one topic with another.. if you scroll back you'll see that you have purposefully or perhaps ignorantly exchange evolution for natural selection.. it is no matter to me either way, what you chose to learn or not, what I do care about is when you misconstrue what I have written so they become in concert with your own personal desires or beliefs.. I am inclined to agree with your statement though if it were the actually the case that I am out to impress you, but I promise you that I don't even think that you share a league with me for me to make any effort at impressing you!

all the best
Reply

Alphadude
11-11-2009, 12:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Raphael
Abiogenesis is a different topic...

Evolution is simply a lie invented by Satan and the Zionists to control us all. I read that somewhere, and the guy sounded very intelligent, and thoroughly convincing.
what proof do u have ? u said
Evolution is simply a lie invented by Satan and the Zionists to control us all
there is no proof
Reply

Raphael
11-11-2009, 12:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fishman
Dude no way, there is a name for this?! I thought it was a term for someone growling like an overgrown ape, while pretending to be an intellectual.
Reply

Trumble
11-11-2009, 12:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
I'm not arguing that it was impossible to occur - just that if we take that number seriously, we're an extremely lucky species.
By what criteria would you define an unlucky species in this context?
Reply

czgibson
11-11-2009, 12:50 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
so what is the problem with you? selective recall?
You can't stop yourself, can you?

That isn't something I can remedy, I can't teach you science!
That gibberish had something to do with science, did it?

is that what natural selection is about in your mind? reproduction? or superior genes selected and passed down?
No, it's about candy-floss. What do you think?

Would you like to have another go at answering the question?

Indeed, espouse as to conjoin one topic with another..
Was that really the clearest way to express it?

if you scroll back you'll see that you have purposefully or perhaps ignorantly exchange evolution for natural selection..
I was using 'evolution' as shorthand for 'evolution by natural selection'. Please forgive me.

it is no matter to me either way, what you chose to learn or not, what I do care about is when you misconstrue what I have written so they become in concert with your own personal desires or beliefs..
I usually misconstrue what you've written because because untangling your ideas from the dense web of verbiage, obscurantism and insults you provide is a challenge for anybody. Finnegans Wake is an easy read compared with many of your posts.

If you genuinely care about making yourself understood, you'll write more clearly. Writing in sentences would be a good start.

I am inclined to agree with your statement though if it were the actually the case that I am out to impress you, but I promise you that I don't even think that you share a league with me for me to make any effort at impressing you!
You're not out to impress me, but you clearly want to impress somebody with your unique approach to the English language.

So, come on. Being the hyperintelligent superbeing you present yourself as, it should be a simple matter to explain to us thickies what the problem is with trinucleotide repeat expansion. Go for it.

Peace
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 01:31 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


You can't stop yourself, can you?
& are you exempt of the same sanctions or simply too good to be true?



That gibberish had something to do with science, did it?
as stated previously, I can't teach you science if you are not willing to even acknowledge that you have a serious deficiency-- Are you able to butter your bread with the scorn that you hold for some members here?

No, it's about candy-floss. What do you think?
That doesn't answer nor pose a question of relevance.. if you want to descend every topic to mere word play to be in concert with your level of expertise, I suggest you do it in the 'puzzles and Humor' section!
Would you like to have another go at answering the question?
until such a time when you can pose your questions to an acceptable degree without being exacerbated or throwing a tantrum can you expect a more detailed reply, you don't seem to make a minimum effort and I am not looking to waste of my time!


Was that really the clearest way to express it?
oh, and what would you recommend? Is this topic about wrangling with words or about science?


I was using 'evolution' as shorthand for 'evolution by natural selection'. Please forgive me.
You seek forgiveness for substituting a mechanism for the heading, a sub-category, and by the same token have a hostile showdown about the word 'espouse' worst yet, claim to understand science? --hilarious-- :D
you are forgiven!



I usually misconstrue what you've written because because untangling your ideas from the dense web of verbiage, obscurantism and insults you provide is a challenge for anybody. Finnegans Wake is an easy read compared with many of your posts.
Then perhaps you can do yourself a great service by avoiding to ensnare me in a reply every so often and of the same topic, only to peddle the same practiced lines as if your manhood depended so deeply on it?
I have a paper published on Genomic fingerprinting using arbitrarily primed PCR, I am sure you'll find it as equally baffling as many of my posts here, but it has nothing to do with my English, rather the subject matter is well over your head!

If you genuinely care about making yourself understood, you'll write more clearly. Writing in sentences would be a good start.
See above!


You're not out to impress me, but you clearly want to impress somebody with your unique approach to the English language.
your life seems to spin in an void, try to broaden your horizon or in the very least imagine that others don't share the same platform with you.. while at it, Perhaps you can point out my secret (impress)ee? -- we should be entitled to some mild amusement out of your frequent drivel!

btw I liked that bit about 'Finnegans Wake' and I just know you weren't after an impression with that one.. it is right up your alley!

So, come on. Being the hyperintelligent superbeing you present yourself as, it should be a simple matter to explain to us thickies what the problem is with trinucleotide repeat expansion. Go for it.
Luckily my super intelligent being' self-worth isn't contingent on the accreditation nor approval of an atheist with a teaching degree, a teacher's manual and his low quality attempts at a public duel...

try to take yourself out of the state of mind that so has you trammeled when it comes to me... I think you detract from your own self worth, which I am convinced means something to you as you seem to highlight your one accolade every so often when addressing me..
Mastery of the English language doesn't make scholars of oafs!

Peace
whatever you say :wink:
Reply

aamirsaab
11-11-2009, 08:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
By what criteria would you define an unlucky species in this context?
Well that's the trick isn't it; the unlucky ones are those who didn't make it, so I wouldn't be able to tell you ;). We're lucky because little Jimmy the first genetic material managed to evolve, against all the odds (or they were in his favour, either way, that is pretty lucky).
Reply

czgibson
11-11-2009, 09:27 AM
Greetings Skye,

I've looked through your latest post and tried to find some useful content, but there is none. Got a link yet?

Peace
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 11:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
We are discussing natural selection not your 30 second google search!
I appear to have repeated czgibson's mistake
and used evolution interchangeably with natural selection.

So the question is now: "Why is Huntington's not compatible with natural selection?"
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 11:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
1 in 10 ^33 from this dude
The 1 in 10^33 refers to the formation of a functional haemoglobin-like molecule by random assembly from amino acids, not the probability of life from non-life and not the formation of anything in a non-random fashion.

You also ignored the part in the same paragraph that says
"Given odds of 1 in 10^33, the hypothetical random molecular generators mentioned above could discover a usable hemoglobin molecule trillions of times per second", speaking of the molecular generator used in the anti-evolutionist example.

So rather than supporting the idea that such a thing is highly unlikely, that paper confirms that such a thing would actually be highly likely, in fact a near certainty, even using the figures cited by creationists to discredit abiogenesis.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Maybe, who knows. Like I said earlier tho, let's try and deal with our solar system. Otherwise, I will be forced to use my Chewbacca defense and this conversation will quickly become retarded.
Well that brings me to another quote from the paper you mentioned.

"This is an intriguing line of reasoning, but it has serious flaws. One flaw, common to many arguments of this sort, is that it is an after-the-fact assessment of probability, which is unreliable without a very careful consideration of all possible alternate contingencies." (emphasis mine)

As I said before, if you ignore the possibility of other places with favourable conditions or don't include other possible types of life and their favoured conditions, you're never going to get a reasonable figure.
Reply

aamirsaab
11-11-2009, 01:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
The 1 in 10^33 refers to the formation of a functional haemoglobin-like molecule by random assembly from amino acids, not the probability of life from non-life and not the formation of anything in a non-random fashion.

You also ignored the part in the same paragraph that says
"Given odds of 1 in 10^33, the hypothetical random molecular generators mentioned above could discover a usable hemoglobin molecule trillions of times per second", speaking of the molecular generator used in the anti-evolutionist example.

So rather than supporting the idea that such a thing is highly unlikely, that paper confirms that such a thing would actually be highly likely, in fact a near certainty, even using the figures cited by creationists to discredit abiogenesis.
If that is the case, we still need to establish WHY and HOW little Jimmy is capable of doing what he does. He has a remarkable and ingenious attribute making him incredibly complex. There has to be a reason for that.

Well that brings me to another quote from the paper you mentioned.

"This is an intriguing line of reasoning, but it has serious flaws. One flaw, common to many arguments of this sort, is that it is an after-the-fact assessment of probability, which is unreliable without a very careful consideration of all possible alternate contingencies." (emphasis mine)

As I said before, if you ignore the possibility of other places with favourable conditions or don't include other possible types of life and their favoured conditions, you're never going to get a reasonable figure.
The problem is, we can't gauge other places and possibilites just yet. We're limited in our knowledge of this solar system, so that's why I'm ''ignoring'' those other possibilties. We have to deal in what we can understand and what we know.

Yes, this won't give us 100% accuracy, but at least we can have some form of meaningful dialoge over the subject matter. Some discussion is better than no discussion, right?
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 02:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
If that is the case, we still need to establish WHY and HOW little Jimmy is capable of doing what he does. He has a remarkable and ingenious attribute making him incredibly complex. There has to be a reason for that.
'How' is just a question of chemistry. 'Why' is a question we can't answer, or even know for certain that there is an answer.
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
We have to deal in what we can understand and what we know.
How is that compatible with with the WHY question above?
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Yes, this won't give us 100% accuracy, but at least we can have some form of meaningful dialoge over the subject matter. Some discussion is better than no discussion, right?
We can discuss it, yeah fine, but using probabilities in isolation isn't really helpful in this case. Yes, you're really lucky if you won the lottery, but the chances that someone will win the lottery are high.

One thing you've left out of your habitable zone discussion thus far is that of the star's age. A star becomes gradually warmer as it ages, and therefore the habitable zone moves further from the star over time. Early in our Sun's life, Venus would have been within the habitable zone, and later in our Sun's life Mars will be within it.

Interesting links:
A planet orbiting Gliese 581
Venus was possibly habitable
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 02:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings Skye,

I've looked through your latest post and tried to find some useful content, but there is none. Got a link yet?

Peace
when you take your brain out for a good wash, can you make any requests!

format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
I appear to have repeated czgibson's mistake
and used evolution interchangeably with natural selection.

So the question is now: "Why is Huntington's not compatible with natural selection?"
Does making the same mistake as gibson loan it more credence? I expect that atheists can only subscribe to the same dogma, since their God Dawkin circumvented and subtly referenced the terms in his manifestos, however, your god is no substitute for your own brain, thus you go ahead and explain to us what 'Natural selection' means to you and in which way it is compatible with a codon reiteration disorders? I fear your previous:

Why would Huntington's not fit with evolution? Most sufferers don't have any of the detrimental symptoms until long after they've reached sexual maturity and been able to pass on their genes. In most cases it would have no effect at all on their 'fitness' to reproduce.
isn't compatible with the definition of 'Natural Selection' where fitness and favorable heritable traits is 'central' to its theme, while low-fitness have fewer off-spring or none at all.. here we have several (I know you like Huntington it is easy to google nonetheless, ( 28 types of spinocerebellar ataxias)/ (fragile X) and the various other polyglutamine disorder to name a few--where low-fitness codons aren't merely passed down but expand rapidly with each successive generation. Natural selection isn't merely about 'phenotypic normalcy' and what other animals find attractive to reproduce, fragile X exhibits pheonotypic abnormalities early on in fact depending on how large the expansion, and they are not about to die or be 'selected out' any time soon! --


all the best!
Reply

Uthman
11-11-2009, 02:28 PM
Sister Gossamer, czgibson, please desist with the personal insults. Thanks.
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 03:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
isn't compatible with the definition of 'Natural Selection' where fitness and favorable heritable traits is 'central' to its theme, while low-fitness have fewer off-spring or none at all.. here we have several (I know you like Huntington it is easy to google nonetheless, ( 28 types of spinocerebellar ataxias)/ (fragile X) and the various other polyglutamine disorder to name a few--where low-fitness codons aren't merely passed down but expand rapidly with each successive generation. Natural selection isn't merely about 'phenotypic normalcy' and what other animals find attractive to reproduce, fragile X exhibits pheonotypic abnormalities early on in fact depending on how large the expansion, and they are not about to die or be 'selected out' any time soon! --
I ask you a question specifically about Huntington's and you give me an answer focussed on Fragile X.

Regarding Huntington's, and only Huntington's, what are the features of this condition that you think impair fitness to reproduce?

You're going to love this one:
A Darwinian approach to Huntington’s disease: Subtle health benefits of a neurological disorder

"Huntington’s disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that, unlike most autosomal dominant disorders, is not being selected against. One explanation for the maintenance of the mutant HD allele is that it is transparent to natural selection because disease symptoms typically occur subsequent to an individual’s peak reproductive years. While true, this observation does not explain the population-level increase in HD. The increase in HD is at least partly the result of enhanced fitness: HD+ individuals have more offspring than unaffected relatives."

While you'd love to think everyone but you is some kind of google-dependent chimpanzee, I initially picked up on this because of experience with someone close to me.

Anyway, your turn.
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 03:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
I ask you a question specifically about Huntington's and you give me an answer focussed on Fragile X.
Your question is irrelevant and insinuated in the middle of a topic on how 'Natural Selection' reconciles with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders. And we are still waiting on a sound response!
Is the term being watered down from its conception, to resign to the times hindered by its original definition? If such is the case, I'd avoid the term 'Darwinian' in anything I quote!

Regarding Huntington's, and only Huntington's, what are the features of this condition that you think impair fitness to reproduce?
Again, it has nothing to do with being fit to reach the stage of reproduction, see my detailed reply in the previous post!

You're going to love this one:
A Darwinian approach to Huntington’s disease: Subtle health benefits of a neurological disorder

"Huntington’s disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that, unlike most autosomal dominant disorders, is not being selected against. One explanation for the maintenance of the mutant HD allele is that it is transparent to natural selection because disease symptoms typically occur subsequent to an individual’s peak reproductive years. While true, this observation does not explain the population-level increase in HD. The increase in HD is at least partly the result of enhanced fitness: HD+ individuals have more offspring than unaffected relatives."
Perhaps you can point out the part that I am supposed to love?
Or does having the term 'Darwinian' in the title absolve you from making minimal effort? In fact the article goes so far to tell you ", this -- does not explain the population-level increase in HD'' -- I am yet to learn of how this reconciles with 'Natural selection' along with the other disorders of this type!



While you'd love to think everyone but you is some kind of google-dependent chimpanzee, I initially picked up on this because of experience with someone close to me.
It would certainly explain your one fixation and loss of the complete picture-- and that has indeed been the general consensus amongst our forum insta-scholars.. google in common!
Anyway, your turn.
I am tickled!
Reply

Ramadhan
11-11-2009, 04:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
One thing you've left out of your habitable zone discussion thus far is that of the star's age. A star becomes gradually warmer as it ages, and therefore the habitable zone moves further from the star over time. Early in our Sun's life, Venus would have been within the habitable zone, and later in our Sun's life Mars will be within it.
Not quite, even if mars gets warmer, it still will not be habitable because it doesn't have rotating liquid iron core which produces magnetic field that acts to protect planets from solar radiation and solar winds.
all life would be toast without artificial protection.
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Your question is irrelevant and insinuated in the middle of a topic on how 'Natural Selection' reconciles with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders. And we are still waiting on a sound response!
What makes you think you can't reconcile the two?

Natural selection doesn't mean that only the best adapted genomes survive, just that they're most likely to survive.


format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Not quite, even if mars gets warmer, it still will not be habitable because it doesn't have rotating liquid iron core which produces magnetic field that acts to protect planets from solar radiation and solar winds.
all life would be toast without artificial protection.
I wasn't suggesting that Mars necessarily would be habitable, but that it would fall within the orbital region known as the 'habitable zone'.
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 07:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
What makes you think you can't reconcile the two?
answering my question with a question doesn't a sound reply make.. Do you understand what was being asked of you? Not just in terms of Huntington which has a Juvenile form by the way but I don't want to bring more variables into the table, when you are having a heck of a time with just one!
Natural selection doesn't mean that only the best adapted genomes survive, just that they're most likely to survive.
Indeed, those with an advantage succeed and those that don't become extinct.. not the case with mutated useless codons that not only succeed but expand with every successive generation!


I wasn't suggesting that Mars necessarily would be habitable, but that it would fall within the orbital region known as the 'habitable zone'.
Not that I want to steal brother Naidmar' thunder, but I have seen your habitable region article and we can't really be sure that the 'habitable' regions are in fact habitable-- Do you read what you post thoroughly?

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 08:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Indeed, those with an advantage succeed and those that don't become extinct.. not the case with mutated useless codons that not only succeed but expand with every successive generation!
Well that's exactly my point, it is not just those with an advantage that succeed. Plenty of neutral or slightly detrimental mutations will succeed with every generation.

People with a small number of repeats will never even know they have them because there will be practically zero effect.

If you look back at the abstract I posted earlier you'll notice they hypothesise that the number of Huntington's carriers is increasing because they are more reproductively successful.

What other explanation do you need?
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not that I want to steal brother Naidmar' thunder, but I have seen your habitable region article and we can't really be sure that the 'habitable' regions are in fact habitable-- Do you read what you post thoroughly?
The habitable zone is simply the region around a star in which a planet would have to orbit in order for the building blocks of known life to be available, such as liquid water. Too far out, the water stays frozen, too close, it all evaporates. That is over-simplified but it's enough to illustrate why I said what I did.
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Well that's exactly my point, it is not just those with an advantage that succeed. Plenty of neutral or slightly detrimental mutations will succeed with every generation.

People with a small number of repeats will never even know they have them because there will be practically zero effect.

If you look back at the abstract I posted earlier you'll notice they hypothesise that the number of Huntington's carriers is increasing because they are more reproductively successful.

What other explanation do you need?
You don't know what level of penetrance of codons are actually needed to exhibit fully any mutation.. you can have a small number and exhibit full traits, or vice versa and that goes for mutations outside the 'insertion' type, so please don't make up things as you go along or as you learn from third party info. Nonetheless, that was never the Q. It was never about hanging around long enough to reproduce as I have shown you that Huntington isn't the only one in its class of disease, and further more it can actually manifest in a Juvenile form .. the Question has always been, why seemingly detrimental and by detrimental I mean fatal genes aren't merely being selected out, they are selected in and expand rapidly.. Seems to go against the very core principal of 'Natural Selection'.. btw that is if I am to agree with it as a mechanism of evolution, which I don't any more than I agree that any mutation or genetic drift will cause 'speciation' .. mutations have names and they aren't beneficial unless you are watching X-men which isn't how it works in real life.. and pls don't bring me the whole tired sickle cell fiasco into the picture as I have covered it here extensively.. substituting one disease state for another doesn't a benefit incur..

I think you collectively take adaptation to mean speciation by a huge leap of faith and then upset at best if challenged on mechanism of action which is the bread and butter of science, either by answering a question with another to deflect from reflecting on your beliefs, or taking a lesser absolute and focusing on it to explain the aberrations that turn up and every so often .. You can't really then come and claim this as the absolute truth of how 'evolution' happens if looking for loop holes every time your are stumped for answers..
your entire dogma is based on fallacious nonsense, that requires a long stretch of the imagination and then wonder why folks take you for indoctrinated zealots who bow before a lesser god?!

The habitable zone is simply the region around a star in which a planet would have to orbit in order for the building blocks of known life to be available, such as liquid water. Too far out, the water stays frozen, too close, it all evaporates. That is over-simplified but it's enough to illustrate why I said what I did.
Except as per your article, they can't be sure that water or oxygen is actually there or was there to sustain life!

and pls allow me to quote directly from your article:
So there's no way to know if there is actually water on the surface, or even oxygen in the atmosphere that would indicate the presence of life. But future missions, like Darwin, will certainly put it in the cross hairs to get a better look for life.
Future hopes aren't inscribed in stone!

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 09:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
why seemingly detrimental and by detrimental I mean fatal genes aren't merely being selected out, they are selected in and expand rapidly..
Because people can be carriers without manifesting the disease. A female Fragile X carrier could have an X which would be fatal to any man but is asymptomatic or only has mild symptoms because she also has a 'working' copy.

Those with mild symptoms may seem normal in the main part but pass on their faulty X to numerous children and so on until the repeats build up several generations later whereupon many of the descendants are symptomatic or receive a fatal copy. Meanwhile those children that didn't receive additional repeats are still breeding as normal carrying them to subsequent generations.

I think it's also important to consider that the selection that happens in modern humans is very often not natural.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Except as per your article, they can't be sure that water or oxygen is actually there or was there to sustain life!
That's not what I'm saying. Obviously if there is no H20 on the planet, moving it closer or farther away from the star isn't going to magically generate some (unless the temperature catalyses some water generating reaction). Being in the habitable zone creates the correct cosy conditions for the prerequisite chemicals to play together happily if they occur. Incidentally, oxygen isn't one of the prerequisites.
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 09:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Because people can be carriers without manifesting the disease. A female Fragile X carrier could have an X which would be fatal to any man but is asymptomatic or only has mild symptoms because she also has a 'working' copy

Those with mild symptoms may seem normal in the main part but pass on their faulty X to numerous children and so on until the repeats build up several generations later whereupon many of the descendants are symptomatic or receive a fatal copy. Meanwhile those children that didn't receive additional repeats are still breeding as normal carrying them to subsequent generations.
what does this have to do with Natural selection 'allowing' for detrimental codons to be selected in and not out? I don't need a genetics lesson, I'd not introduce material to the table if I had no prior knowledge of it!
I think it's also important to consider that the selection that happens in modern humans is very often not natural.
Oh? to begin with I'd like your definition of 'Natural' before we expand..

That's not what I'm saying. Obviously if there is no H20 on the planet, moving it closer or farther away from the star isn't going to magically generate some (unless the temperature catalyses some water generating reaction). Being in the habitable zone creates the correct cosy conditions for the prerequisite chemicals to play together happily if they occur. Incidentally, oxygen isn't one of the prerequisites.
I don't think you are capable of distinguishing 'natural' from 'unnatural' from 'magical' what is your criteria and baseline?

what came first the chicken or the egg?

all the best
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 10:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
what does this have to do with Natural selection 'allowing' for detrimental codons to be selected in and not out?
Detrimental codons are not selected in, the problem is that often they're not selected out.

It's unlikely that an asymptomatic carrier or mildly symptomatic carrier would be selected out. You can't select against something which does not manifest itself or affect the selection process.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Oh? to begin with I'd like your definition of 'Natural' before we expand..
It's a tricky one, since we're natural by extension one could consider anything and everything we do to be natural including nuclear power stations and stem cell research. What I mean in this case is that selection which would occur without any interference from modern technology. How things would happen 'in the wild', as it were, before humans coalesced into civilisations.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I don't think you are capable of distinguishing 'natural' from 'unnatural' from 'magical' what is your criteria and baseline?
I don't think you are capable of saying "Oh, sorry, I thought you meant something else."
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
what came first the chicken or the egg?
The egg. Fish were producing eggs long before chickens evolved.
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 10:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Detrimental codons are not selected in, the problem is that often they're not selected out.

It's unlikely that an asymptomatic carrier or mildly symptomatic carrier would be selected out. You can't select against something which does not manifest itself or affect the selection process.
Fact in spite of your assertions is that not only are they selected in, but there is no halting or correcting the process once it is set forth.. if 'natural selection' were a mechanism by which the most fitted survives this would be a stab right at the very citadel!

It's a tricky one, since we're natural by extension one could consider anything and everything we do to be natural including nuclear power stations and stem cell research. What I mean in this case is that selection which would occur without any interference from modern technology. How things would happen 'in the wild', as it were, before humans coalesced into civilisations.
That doesn't explain what natural is-- Natural has an imaginary standard line, which makes the lot of you incapable of describing anything that falls to the left or the right of it without grizzling, and mum at best at how 'natural' in an of itself came to be, sentience and all!

I don't think you are capable of saying "Oh, sorry, I thought you meant something else."
Whatever you need to do to get yourself through this..

The egg. Fish were producing eggs long before chickens evolved.
swell, I am glad you said that.. now please carry us through the process of one large cell and I'll cut you some slack and provide you with the basics in spite of the probabilities and dynamics that assemble it as such and without a host for survival or favorable environmental conditions.. just go ahead and take through the process to a fully fledged chicken and I'll spare you the hundreds of millions of other species for which you are to carry a similar process for without intervention!


all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-11-2009, 11:07 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Fact in spite of your assertions is that not only are they selected in, but there is no halting or correcting the process once it is set forth.. if 'natural selection' were a mechanism by which the most fitted survives this would be a stab right at the very citadel!
So we're not talking at cross purposes here, tell me how you think that they are 'selected in'.

Also, what sort of mechanism would be considered natural that had some kind of process for picking out faulty codons that are the precursor to a problem several generations forward?
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
That doesn't explain what natural is-- Natural has an imaginary standard line, which makes the lot of you incapable of describing anything that falls to the left or the right of it without grizzling, and mum at best at how 'natural' in an of itself came to be, sentience and all!
I explained what I mean when I use 'natural' in the context of natural selection, which was the only pertinent definition at that point. It's an arbitrary distinction and I said as much.
Reply

Trumble
11-11-2009, 11:20 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Well that's the trick isn't it; the unlucky ones are those who didn't make it, so I wouldn't be able to tell you ;). We're lucky because little Jimmy the first genetic material managed to evolve, against all the odds (or they were in his favour, either way, that is pretty lucky).
"Those who didn't make it" is a contradiction in terms in this context as 'making it' is a necessary condition for being a 'they' or 'those' in the first place. You cannot have a 'lucky' species if it is impossible to have an 'unlucky' one!

The issue is not whether little Jimmy managed to evolve, but whether one of a billion billion potential little Jimmys ever came into existence in the first place. As we know for a fact that at least one did, we therefore know the odds of there being at least one little Jimmy with complete certainty. 100%. :)
Reply

جوري
11-11-2009, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
So we're not talking at cross purposes here, tell me how you think that they are 'selected in'.
Really that was difficult? they pass defective genes from generation to generation, with each generation manifesting a worst outcome.
Also, what sort of mechanism would be considered natural that had some kind of process for picking out faulty codons that are the precursor to a problem several generations forward?I explained what I mean when I use 'natural' in the context of natural selection, which was the only pertinent definition at that point. It's an arbitrary distinction and I said as much.
I don't know what mechanism is considered natural.. you are the one using the term and often, I'd think the burden of proof would lie upon you to explain what it is and how it works? You say, nothing is created, 'the egg came first' and you even threw in fish before chicken, with the bravado of someone who has mastered his craft, yet here you are at the cross roads failing to tell us how it all 'naturally' came to be?.. I really didn't think the question was that difficult!


all the best
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Really that was difficult? they pass defective genes from generation to generation, with each generation manifesting a worst outcome.
Each generation doesn't necessarily manifest a worse outcome. Some would manifest a worse outcome, most would have the same number of repeats, occasionally there would be an extremely fluky deletion of a repeat.

It's the people who acquire the same number of repeats, display no symptoms and then reproduce that cause an increase in carriers and 'select in' the defective genes.

You can't prevent it from being selected in if there is no manifestation to select on.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I don't know what mechanism is considered natural.. you are the one using the term and often, I'd think the burden of proof would lie upon you to explain what it is and how it works?
The halt or correction comes when organisms die from their genetic defects. What other system would you expect?
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You say, nothing is created, 'the egg came first' and you even threw in fish before chicken, with the bravado of someone who has mastered his craft, yet here you are at the cross roads failing to tell us how it all 'naturally' came to be?
Knowing that fish laid eggs before chickens existed does not require one to know how it all came to be.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 12:14 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Each generation doesn't necessarily manifest a worse outcome. Some would manifest a worse outcome, most would have the same number of repeats, occasionally there would be an extremely fluky deletion of a repeat.
oh?
well let's see what the geneticists say:

Anticipation and transmitting parent effect — HD is transmitted as an autosomal dominant trait. As mentioned earlier, expansion of the repeat number between successive generations causes an earlier and more severe phenotype, termed anticipation.

Paternal inheritance produces the largest increase, with an average of nine repeats with each generation [8] . The intergenerational anticipation shows a major transmitting parent effect, as approximately 70 to 88 percent of symptomatic juvenile patients inherit the mutant HD gene from their father [9,10] . The high number of cellular divisions that occur during spermatogenesis may account for the pronounced paternal-repeat instability
Source: Trottier, Y, Devys, D, Imbert, G, et al. Cellular localization of the Huntington's disease protein and discrimination of the normal and mutated form. Nat Genet 1995; 10:104. Zuhlke, C, Riess, O, Bockel, B, et al. Mitotic stability and meiotic variability of the (CAG)n repeat in the Huntington disease gene. Hum Mol Genet 1993; 2:2063.

Uptodate.com

It's the people who acquire the same number of repeats, display no symptoms and then reproduce that cause an increase in carriers and 'select in' the defective genes.
I believe I have introduced you to penetrance a few posts ago just like I am now introducing you to the term anticipation!..
perhaps you can shed some light on your own points?
You can't prevent it from being selected in if there is no manifestation to select on.
What does this mean?

The halt or correction comes when organisms die from their genetic defects. What other system would you expect?
I expect that when terms are coined and peddled around as scientific, that they manage to withstand the test of time!

Knowing that fish laid eggs before chickens existed does not require one to know how it all came to be.
So what you are saying is that you accept that on faith? like those who accept that we were created on faith?

Thanks, that was pretty much all I needed out of this exercise..
Now quit passing it off as science while parading the 'smarter than thou' attitude ..

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 12:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
oh?
well let's see what the geneticists say:
So now we're being Huntington's specific? :)

My point stands for Fragile X, and as we discussed before, Huntington's is unlikely to be selected out because by the time it is manifest, the carrier is usually old enough to have grandchildren.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
So what you are saying is that you accept that on faith? like those who accept that we were created on faith?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

There is palaeontological evidence that there was a time when no chickens lived, and fish laid eggs. That's all I need to know in order to tell you that eggs came first.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
So now we're being Huntington's specific? :)
It narrows down the field for you but you are none the wiser?

My point stands for Fragile X, and as we discussed before, Huntington's is unlikely to be selected out because by the time it is manifest, the carrier is usually old enough to have grandchildren.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here?

There is palaeontological evidence that there was a time when no chickens lived, and fish laid eggs. That's all I need to know in order to tell you that eggs came first.
There was a time when no humans lived and there was one shrubs, again what is your point? No matter how you slice it, your convictions as far as evolution and the origins of life are concerned are based solely on faith not facts!

all the best!
Reply

tetsujin
11-12-2009, 02:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
what mutations have caused evolution? do you have a name for them and a mechanism of action?
All of them. Evolution is decent with modification. What do you mean by mechanism of action? Action implies an agency. I’m not going to choose your words for you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
mutations are identified we have loads of molecular biology and genetic books about them, you may google some of them 'frameshift, missense, nonsense' to name a few, can you show me how one or any have caused speciation?
It's your lucky day

format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
how does natural selection explain Trinucleotide repeat expansion why do you collectively peddle the same crap over in an attempt to sound intelligent, but mum at best when it comes to mechanism of action? I mean isn't that what is missing from the 'God of the Gaps' story, why don't you fill the gaps with sound science? as well explain the motive and end result?
No, I'm sorry. The problem with the god of that gaps "story" is that it is a form of argument from ignorance. If there was no explanation for our evolutionary past/present, that does not mean you get to choose whatever you theory you like without providing any evidence for it. The god of the gaps theory has been around for ages and every time a gap in knowledge is filled the believers wait until they can’t ignore the evidence any longer and then find another smaller hole to shove god into.

I’m not going to sit here and have this conversation regress towards particle physics simply to satisfy that there are no gaps for your god to fit into. Provide us with some reason to believe a god exists, because withholding belief is the default position, as you would withhold belief in Odin or Quetzalcoatl.

As for the mechanism, you'll have to clarify what you mean. There are no motives in evolution via natural selection. There are no "end results", that is a byproduct of your religious beliefs.

All the best,


Faysal
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 03:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
All of them. Evolution is decent with modification. What do you mean by Mechanism of action? Action implies an agency. I’m not going to choose your words for you.
Really? so such mutations as, nonsense mutation, point mutation, frameshift mutation , deletion , inversion haven't given us such things as, Cystic fibrosis, Duchenne muscular dystrophy , Beta thalassaemia (β-globin), Hurler syndrome, hypercholestreolemia etc etc according to you all of them have given us rock into fish into duck? that is great, let me be the first to applaud you and if I may escort you down to Stockholm for your Nobel prize ..

As for 'Mechanism of action' that was hard for you to understand? I mean it is the actual title of the page, expend some mild effort or don't bother write at all!

A mechanism of action, looks something like this:
If I am looking for how a mutation works or how a neurotransmitter works--


General Mechanism of Action

Neurotransmitters are formed in a presynaptic neuron and stored in small membrane-bound sacks, called vesicles , inside this neuron. When this neuron is activated, these intracellular vesicles fuse with the cell membrane and release their contents into the synapse, a process called exocytosis.
Once the neurotransmitter is in the synapse, several events may occur. It may (1) diffuse across the synapse and bind to a receptor on the postsynaptic membrane, (2) diffuse back to the presynaptic neuron and bind to a presynaptic receptor causing modulation of neurotransmitter release, (3) be chemically altered by an enzyme in the synapse, or (4) be transported into a nearby cell. For the chemical message to be passed to another cell, however, the neurotransmitter must bind to its protein receptor on the postsynaptic side. The binding of a neurotransmitter to its receptor is a key event in the action of all neurotransmitters.
That is actually a superficial level of doing it but I'd still find that acceptable, I don't expect everyone to be a walking encyclopedic effort on molecular biology and biochemistry, however if you are going to engage in a topic that is repulsed by 'the god of the gap' then please show us what is better, preferably articulate it in your own words rather than referencing us to some website from which we are magically to draw some brilliant conclusion.. Do you think you can do the same instead of saying 'all of them?

That is pretty much all you have to do with your pearls, sort of like your previous complaints about the laryngeal nerve, if you'd like to sever it from the vagus, perhaps you can discuss with us the route that 'nature' should have rather taken, how it came to take that first route to begin with, which parts were innervated first and why.. I am not interested in poetic science!




Thanks, I found it as informative as this:
What happens to your soul after Death?

http://www.funeralplan.com/askexperts/soul.html
amusing and virtually appealing!



No, I'm sorry. The problem with the god of that gaps "story" is that it is a form of argument from ignorance. If there was no explanation for our evolutionary past/present, that does not mean you get to choose whatever you theory you like without providing any evidence for it. The god of the gaps theory has been around for ages and every time a gap in knowledge is filled the believers wait until they can’t ignore the evidence any longer and then find another smaller hole to shove god into.

And what would you choose to call this? scientifically sound?





.. you mistake the swaggering bluster of fools as sound scientific evidence, but that is indeed because you take lesser gods for sound reason... as Dr. Bert Thompson put in his reason number four:
Reason #4
Without a doubt, there are many who believe in evolution because they have rejected God. For those who refuse to believe in the Creator, evolution becomes their only escape. They generally make no pretense of believing it based on anything other than their disbelief in God. Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evolutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested: “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature” (1917, p. ix). Henry Morris noted: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 98).
Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, 123:233). These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make it clear that those who say such things believe in evolution not because of any evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds, a priori, that they are not going to believe in God.
In his text, Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny, the eminent United Nations scientist, A.E. Wilder-Smith, observed that “Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, rightly or wrongly, have been used everywhere in the East and West, in the hands of the atheists and agnostics, as the main weapon against the biblical doctrine of origins” (1975, p. 31). For the person who stubbornly refuses to believe in God, belief in evolution becomes automatic. Similarly, opposition to God as the Creator, the Bible and His Word, and the system of origins the Bible describes become just as automatic. Whenever a person rids himself of God, he simultaneously (even if unknowingly) embraces evolution. By his disbelief, he has eliminated creation as an option regarding his origin.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/238

I’m not going to sit here and have this conversation regress towards particle physics simply to satisfy that there are to gaps for your god to fit into. Provide us with some reason to believe a god exists, because withholding belief is the default position, as you would withhold belief in Odin or Quetzalcoatl.
Who is asking you to sit here and explain anything? I think you have demonstrated your abilities in your opening statements and in fact they echo all you write here.. why you are under the impression that Muslims aboard regard what you say as of value is a mystery to me? you spend too much time on an Islamic forum, and yet your position stands on more absurd grounds-
As for the mechanism, you'll have to clarify what you mean. There are no motives in evolution via natural selection. There are no "end results", that is a byproduct of your religious beliefs.

All the best,
See previous paragraph on the matter, if you can't discuss the marrow of this with any dexterity then don't waste my time or yours, I have already wasted my day off on the other two and not looking for new gadflies to while my hours!...

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 09:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I have no idea what you are trying to say here?
How terribly convenient.

The mistake we both made was to try make a sweeping statement about all TRE disorders, but it seems the correct thing to do is look at each disorder individually.

Fragile X seems to perpetuate because the stable and premutation forms can be passed down many generations with little or no effect on the carriers. The gene can be inherited either without change, or with change but with no manifestation (i.e. when there are less than 200 repeats).

Over several generations one stable or early premutation carrier could conceivably pass down a premutation X to hundreds of asymptomatic descendants with gradually increasing repeat length.

Huntington's mutations seem to be more unstable than Fragile X, but can propagate because a carrier will often pass on their genes before the disease manifests any symptoms. Genes are quite often passed on with small expansions or no expansions, and in the case of transmission from a female parent the mean change is a small contraction.

We must also consider that new mutations can occur. Even if all existing carriers of these TREs disappeared completely, there is nothing to prevent new cases from emerging.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
There was a time when no humans lived and there was one shrubs, again what is your point?
I wasn't making a point, I was answering your question.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 02:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
How terribly convenient.
How so?
The mistake we both made was to try make a sweeping statement about all TRE disorders, but it seems the correct thing to do is look at each disorder individually.
That is a mistake you have made.. I am not looking for what the disorder is, rather how the disorder reconciles with 'Natural Selection' You lose sight of what this is about every so often and I imagine it is because you have no idea what the hell you are talking about!
Fragile X seems to perpetuate because the stable and premutation forms can be passed down many generations with little or no effect on the carriers. The gene can be inherited either without change, or with change but with no manifestation (i.e. when there are less than 200 repeats).blah blah .
As I told you previously, I don't need a genetics lesson, this doesn't answer the Q, just takes a long circuitous route for you to bypass saying.. you know you are absolutely right, here we have several disorders where unfit genes survive and perpetuate rapidly with no correction or halting of the process!


We must also consider that new mutations can occur. Even if all existing carriers of these TREs disappeared completely, there is nothing to prevent new cases from emerging.
Indeed.. again what does this have to do with the subject matter? de novo mutations are born all the time!

I wasn't making a point, I was answering your question.
You haven't managed to do that yet!

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 03:21 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
How so?
Anyone who is halfway capable of reading English would understand. I suspect you are being obtuse.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I am not looking for what the disorder is, rather how the disorder reconciles with 'Natural Selection'
No, you aren't looking at that at all.
You have access to all the journals and all the information you could require to make a decision, you could present it here and say "OK, let's look at all this and try to see if we can make sense of it".

You don't do that. You make generalisations, misrepresent the idea you claim to be trying to grasp and even feign a lack of understanding simple sentences when it suits you.

You do anything but present your case in such a way that someone could make a clear judgement based on it.



Your argument, quoted (correct me if I'm wrong):
"Natural selection allegedly results in only those best adapted tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.. well in trinucleotide repeat expansion unstable and defective genes increase and repeat count with each successive generation."

The fundamental mistake is, as I already said:

Natural selection does not result in the survival of only the best adapted.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 04:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Anyone who is halfway capable of reading English would understand. I suspect you are being obtuse.
I love your intellectual bankruptcy!
No, you aren't looking at that at all.
You are not exactly the source anyone should look to receive any reliable sensical info. from!
You have access to all the journals and all the information you could require to make a decision, you could present it here and say "OK, let's look at all this and try to see if we can make sense of it".
The Journals don't deal with the poetic science!
in fact, that is what sets apart the pioneers from the conformists, asking the right questions!

You don't do that. You make generalisations, misrepresent the idea you claim to be trying to grasp and even feign a lack of understanding simple sentences when it suits you.
If you scroll back a few pages you'll see that you are the one who single cherry-picked the one disorder you alleged you could deal with-- which you couldn't
1- you didn't even know it came in Juvenile form
2- when brought the entire picture preferred to discuss the one.
3- you take whatever I say and write an essay about, if it is anticipation, then all of a sudden that is your pet project, if it is penetrance, then that is your new pet project, and it is indeed because you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.. it is never about frafile X or polyglutamine or Huntington it is about how this subset of genetic disorders reconcile with a 'known' mechanism of 'Natural Selection' Problem is you are unable to defend your beliefs, because you have no idea why it is you believe in them.. you have joined a group of Illuminati and are gifted with science by proxy.. unfortunately belonging to the cult of atheism doesn't make scholars out of fools!
You do anything but present your case in such a way that someone could make a clear judgement based on it.
Anyone who is following this thread will be the judge of that!



Your argument, quoted (correct me if I'm wrong):
"Natural selection allegedly results in only those best adapted tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.. well in trinucleotide repeat expansion unstable and defective genes increase and repeat count with each successive generation."

The fundamental mistake is, as I already said:

Natural selection does not result in the survival of only the best adapted.

here is the meriam webster definition:



Main Entry: natural selection
Function: noun
Date: 1857
: a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment


now, I know it is difficult but try to carry that thought to a genetic level!


all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 04:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
in fact, that is what sets apart the pioneers from the conformists, asking the right questions!
Followers of millennia old creation stories = pioneers?
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If you scroll back a few pages you'll see that you are the one who single cherry-picked the one disorder you alleged you could deal with--
Feel free to criticise me rather than address the points made.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
here is the meriam webster definition:
If we're going to speak of natural selection in the strictest terms, TRE sufferers are not involved since they are not among the best adapted. That TREs exist therefore does not have any bearing on whether natural selection or evolution by natural selection are valid. There will almost always be some organisms who fall into the category of 'not best adapted'.

What does that really tell us about anything?
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 04:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Followers of millennia old creation stories = pioneers?Feel free to criticise me rather than address the points made.
As opposed to followers of a couple of century old tarradiddles and enfeebled tales which they can't defend , demonstrate or refine to save their dear life?.. yeah you really have a point.. btw.. exactly what is it? I have read a couple of fatuous manipulated cuts and pastes that vaguely address the points I brought to the table rather drown us in definitions which ironically I had addressed earlier!

If we're going to speak of natural selection in the strictest terms, TRE sufferers are not involved since they are not among the best adapted.
How are they best adapted? Death by forty or before-- mental retardation and cerebellar ataxia are well adapted in your mind?
That TREs exist therefore does not have any bearing on whether natural selection or evolution by natural selection are valid. There will almost always be some organisms who fall into the category of 'not best adapted'.
You decided that they don't fall into that category because? There is no genetics involved? There is no expansion over generations of mutated codons? I see your point yet again
What does that really tell us about anything?
You are not even a challenge, I don't understand why you insist on publicly humiliating yourself? The point is keep it simple as it seems your mind can't accommodate more!

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 04:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
How are they best adapted?
Read it again, I said "not among the best adapted".

If they are not among the best adapted, natural selection is not concerned with them and therefore no reconciliation need be done.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 04:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Read it again, I said "not among the best adapted".

If they are not among the best adapted, natural selection is not concerned with them and therefore no reconciliation need be done.
I made a typo, nonetheless it doesn't change the fact of the matter.. why should something that occurs 'naturally' in 'nature', and subject to its 'laws' according to you and yours be left out of the process or excluded?
in fact it was never merely about their survival though they are less fit, it was about the perpetuation of their 'unnatural selection' many generations down the line...

if they are excluded then I guess you can exclude everything from your Darwinian bull?!

all the best
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 05:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
why should something that occurs 'naturally' in nature, and subject to its laws according to you and yours be left out of the process?
Why should organisms that are not best adapted not be subject to a law that only concerns itself with the best adapted?
Because that's how it's defined, perhaps.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
in fact it was never merely about their survival, it was about the perpetuation of their 'unnatural selection' many generations down the line...
It's hard to believe that your photographic memory accidentally erased your earlier statement:

"Your question is irrelevant and insinuated in the middle of a topic on how 'Natural Selection' reconciles with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders."

The definition you posted makes clear that your post is merely about the survival of the best adapted.
The definition you posted has nothing to do with perpetuation of the lesser adapted.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 05:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Why should organisms that are not best adapted not be subject to a law that only concerns itself with the best adapted?
oh, I don't know.. something about their existence and non-extinction I assume should allow for that second glance?!
Because that's how it's defined, perhaps.
The definition and what exists are indeed at odds, perhaps therein lies the problem?

It's hard to believe that your photographic memory accidentally erased your earlier statement:

"Your question is irrelevant and insinuated in the middle of a topic on how 'Natural Selection' reconciles with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders."
Indeed, You were making it about Huntington or fragile X which it isn't.. however, what about 'trinucleotide repeat expansion' are we concerned with? .. it is like you have run out of crap to say and just pulling anything out of a hat!
The definition you posted makes clear that your post is merely about the survival of the best adapted.
then what do we do with the not best adapted so we can make the definition have some merit and not along the lines of century old tales??

The definition you posted has nothing to do with perpetuation of the lesser adapted.
Leaving something paramount out of the picture, should allude to the fact that there is both error and incompleteness in the definition and the mechanism described.. yet again, thank you for reaching the correct conclusion on your own!


all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 05:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The definition and what exists are indeed at odds, perhaps therein lies the problem?...
...Leaving something paramount out of the picture, should allude to the fact that there is both error and incompleteness in the definition and the mechanism described...
...then what do we do with the not best adapted so we can make the definition have some merit and not along the lines of century old tales??
The definition and what exists are not at odds. In any given situation there will always be a genome that is the "best adapted", even if that only refers to the best of a bad bunch.

Each law has it's own scope. If you don't like the scope of natural selection, perhaps you should do some research and formulate your own law.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 05:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
The definition and what exists are not at odds. In any given situation there will always be a genome that is the "best adapted", even if that only refers to the best of a bad bunch.
The 'bad bunch' tend to die out and become extinct.. not flourish! .. if you need another 5 pages to understand that, then I suggest you work on it on your own private time and stop wasting mine....
Each law has it's own scope. If you don't like the scope of natural selection, perhaps you should do some research and formulate your own law.
I neither accept mutations nor natural selection as incontrovertible evidence for speciation.. They are concerned with what they are concerned with, the first with a disease state/ death/cancer or in the case of silent mutation (no change) and the latter as catch all phrase for adaptation a known and observable fact, no more no less!

by the way there is a difference between 'its' as in possessive form of and 'it's' -- I know you and your pal are so concerned with my English.. I think I should share in that concern from folks who pose themselves as authority in every field!

all the best
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 06:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The 'bad bunch' tend to die out and become extinct.. not flourish! .. if you need another 5 pages to understand that, then I suggest you work on it on your own private time and stop wasting mine....
I understand it perfectly, but the important phrase in there is
"tend to die out". That's not the same as "will die out" or "must die out".
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I neither accept mutations nor natural selection as incontrovertible evidence for speciation..
I'm aware of that, you mention it frequently.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
by the way there is a difference between 'its' as in possessive form of and 'it's' -- I know you and your pal are so concerned with my English..
I couldn't give a monkey's about your English except when you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting something. He's the English teacher. Ta for the heads up.
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 06:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
I understand it perfectly, but the important phrase in there is
"tend to die out". That's not the same as "will die out" or "must die out".
important to whom? the definition or what exists?

I'm aware of that, you mention it frequently.I couldn't give a monkey's about your English except when you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting something. He's the English teacher.
I have done no such thing, in fact I'll go so far to say, it is the last ammo of the deficient mind.. if you can't focus on the subject matter then find something ancillary to pin your **** on and deflect from the topic!

Ta for the heads up.
glad I was of help..

all the best
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 06:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
important to whom? the definition or what exists?
It's not part of the definition. You can infer it from the definition, but it's not essential to it.

As I said, if you want to create another law that deals with the rest of the population, fill your boots. I recommend that you name it "natural non-specific non-selection".

Also when you're talking about TREs, would it not be sensible to consider what it means to be 'best adapted' in modern times? If a carrier is given social, medical and financial support, does that not move them up the list of 'best adapted to modern life'?
Reply

جوري
11-12-2009, 06:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
It's not part of the definition. You can infer it from the definition, but it's not essential to it.

As I said, if you want to create another law that deals with the rest of the population, fill your boots. I recommend that you name it "natural non-specific non-selection".

Also when you're talking about TREs, would it not be sensible to consider what it means to be 'best adapted' in modern times? If a carrier is given social, medical and financial support, does that not move them up the list of 'best adapted to modern life'?
we're done here, see previous for expansive replies & my views.. I don't like repeating myself nor idle talk with someone who refuses to make scientific sense!
this has nothing to do with finances or social support, are we discussing genetics in relation to evolution or underwater basket-weaving?-- what a joke!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-12-2009, 08:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
we're done here, see previous for expansive replies & my views.. I don't like repeating myself nor idle talk with someone who refuses to make scientific sense!
You're the one who tried to apply an idea to a situation for which it wasn't intended.
format_quote Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
this has nothing to do with finances or social support, are we discussing genetics in relation to evolution not underwater basket-weaving -- what a joke!
Your favoured definition:
"a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment"

It doesn't say what that environment can or cannot be. This is why I noted that the distinction between natural and artificial is arbitrary since everything could be considered natural as it all comes from 'nature'.
Reply

JaffaCake
11-13-2009, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
wow what a strong rebuttal from you, accusing the person of being a liar without actually giving any refutation or evidence to counter what the other side has said.
As this thread (predictably) got a little sidetracked, I'm going to post a more specific rebuttal lest I be accused of trying to wriggle away when challenged.


I suppose the first thing is the watchmaker argument, an argument I love because it is so obviously flawed but at the same time feels intuitively true. It boils down to:

"A system so complex can't be uncreated, so an even more complex uncreated being must have created it."

If that isn't the mother of all contradictions I don't know what is.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, which is about the ‘special’ characteristics of Light
The Special Theory of Relativity is about the equivalence of inertial reference frames.

photons of Light energy do not show any of the three necessary characteristics to be part of the physical universe.
There aren't any criteria to determine what is and isn't part of the 'physical universe', probably because as far as
we can tell there isn't anything else apart from the 'physical universe'.

they are not involved in the flow of time;
Light has a velocity, which has a time component.

When asked why the sub-atomic particles joined together into the more complex arrangements of nuclei and atoms science
answers that it is due to the ‘electromagnetic force’.
No, nuclei are held together by the Strong Nuclear Force.

And so on... it just gets more bizarre the more you read.
The statement "I was many years ago a university professor with a background in theoretical physics.." is almost certainly untrue.
Reply

جوري
11-13-2009, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
You're the one who tried to apply an idea to a situation for which it wasn't intended.
I can't make up for the shortcomings of an insufficiently educated troll!
Your favoured definition:
"a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment"

It doesn't say what that environment can or cannot be. This is why I noted that the distinction between natural and artificial is arbitrary since everything could be considered natural as it all comes from 'nature'.
Another non sequitur that has positively no relevance to what I have written, the subject matter, the definition or what falls into its confines-- a group of plastered words as is expected of someone who draws satisfaction of overly simplistic conclusions!




all the best
Reply

JaffaCake
11-13-2009, 10:58 PM
Does it irritate you when the insufficiently educated can point out the flaws in your killer arguments?
Reply

جوري
11-13-2009, 11:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Does it irritate you when the insufficiently educated can point out the flaws in your killer arguments?
Rather, I find it amusing and virtually appealing that they are able to distinguish a flaw from their crypts of morgagni, given that all their contentions come straight out of there :D

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-13-2009, 11:19 PM
Either way, it's not a great endorsement of your own education that on failing to discredit an idea as it is, you seek to change it until you can.
Reply

جوري
11-13-2009, 11:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Either way, it's not a great endorsement of your own education that on failing to discredit an idea as it is, you seek to change it until you can.
My education is verified by the highest accrediting body in the western world, the rant of a gadfly whose two remaining brain cells are held together by a spirochete, and can't argue sense to save his dear life, holds no bearing on the matter!

all the best
Reply

JaffaCake
11-13-2009, 11:56 PM
It's a shame then that the opinions of the great scholars of the western world don't actually seem to mean anything to you.

Hope we can find something to argue over in future :) Ta-ta for now.
Reply

جوري
11-14-2009, 12:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
It's a shame then that the opinions of the great scholars of the western world don't actually seem to mean anything to you.

Hope we can find something to argue over in future :) Ta-ta for now.
opinions? if such is the case then there is plenty of opinion from both sides argued by great scientists .. Being a scientist doesn't denote automatic belief in evolution or anything in between. Science is concerned with facts not fiction. ..

all the best!
Reply

JaffaCake
11-14-2009, 12:25 AM
Even more of a shame that you disregard that which western scholars consider fact.
Reply

جوري
11-14-2009, 12:28 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by JaffaCake
Even more of a shame that you disregard that which western scholars consider fact.
I guess the shame goes both ways especially when we speak of 'facts'?

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0603/0603005.pdf

and if I am merely to go on your preferred style of empiricist philosophy!

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/56427

BTW, I like showcased apes at the natural history as much as the next guy though, but I think they share a common ancestor with atheists only!

all the best
Reply

Woodrow
11-14-2009, 12:43 AM
Because of technical difficulties we will now lose contact with WW3 as the

:threadclo:

Self Destruct sequence has been activated. Please leave the thread before detonation.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-06-2021, 10:00 AM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-23-2011, 07:53 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-18-2009, 08:22 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 08:15 PM
  5. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 09:25 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!