Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nice defense of Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, you deemed it worthy of posting, to support your point--what are your qualifications to judge a peer reviewed article, may I ask in reply?


    I did, now please respond to my points--instead of posting more articles.



    Please see "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues" by Behe and Snoke.

    Source: https://www.pnas.org/content/100/13/7527



    The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes
    Yong Jiang and Russell F. Doolittle
    PNAS June 24, 2003 100 (13) 7527-7532; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0932632100

    Abstract
    The blood coagulation scheme for the puffer fish, Fugu rubripes, has been reconstructed on the basis of orthologs of genes for mammalian blood clotting factors being present in its genome. As expected, clotting follows the same fundamental pattern as has been observed in other vertebrates, even though genes for some clotting factors found in mammals are absent and some others are present in more than one gene copy. All told, 26 different proteins involved in clotting or fibrinolysis were searched against the puffer fish genome. Of these, orthologs were found for 21. Genes for the ``contact system'' factors (factor XI, factor XII, and prekallikrein) could not be identified. On the other hand, two genes were found for factor IX and four for factor VII. It was evident that not all four factor VII genes are functional, essential active-site residues having been replaced in two of them. A search of the genome of a urochordate, the sea squirt, Ciona intestinalis, did not turn up any genuine orthologs for these 26 factors, although paralogs and/or constituent domains were evident for virtually all of them.

    © Copyright Original Source


    So why exactly are you citing this paper? It seems to be much less comprehensive than the first one you cited, which I did read. It's a lot of work to read these papers, so if you're not going to tell me what you got from them, I'm going to think you're just spraying papers at me without consideration.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    The comprehensive nature is not the issue. Each of these papers deal with different important aspects and approaches to the evolution of blood clotting. These are only several of of the many articles that deal with the research. This is to inform you that the argument by Behe and you is bogus as a three dollar bill, and that it is a matter of fact that the evolution of blood clotting is well documented in research. You may have read the paper, but have failed to address the research and specifically what the problems are. You have described in vague terms it as "difficult" without addressing the research as to what is "difficult."

    It is a matter of fact that Behe has failed to publish his objections in a coherent scientific way to address the research I have cited.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      One, the answer is no. Look into intrinsically disordered proteins.
      Well, interesting.
      It is interesting, isn't it? You've been engaged in an extended discussion about the folding/function relationship of proteins while being completely unaware of a large group of proteins that are extremely relevant to that argument.

      I'd like you to consider for a moment that, if you didn't know about this, what other relevant information are you completely unaware of? And, before we get back to the back-and-forth about your specific errors, maybe share with us what you think that tells you about your knowledge of biology, and ability to evaluate this particular issue.

      Also, could I ask whether you are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        You have described in vague terms it as "difficult" without addressing the research as to what is "difficult."
        No, what I said was this:

        Originally posted by lee_merrill
        … it's a simple scenario for a complex system, with acknowledged problems. In addition, his figure 6 ("Time-line phylogeny for appearance (and disappearance) of various clotting factors during the course of vertebrate evolution.") has only 6 of the factors, and one step labeled "Period of invention."

        So not a complete scenario, by any means.
        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
          I'd like you to consider for a moment that, if you didn't know about this, what other relevant information are you completely unaware of?
          Well, I wouldn't know what I am unaware of!

          And, before we get back to the back-and-forth about your specific errors, maybe share with us what you think that tells you about your knowledge of biology, and ability to evaluate this particular issue.
          I've read books by biologists, by Behe in particular, and by Reasons to Believe, which address such issues, and am willing to read further, and discuss and learn more.

          Also, could I ask whether you are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
          No, I wasn't aware of that.

          Blessings,
          Lee
          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Well, I wouldn't know what I am unaware of!
            Which is the problem with your lack of understanding of the scientific literature I cited.

            I've read books by biologists, by Behe in particular, and by Reasons to Believe, which address such issues, and am willing to read further, and discuss and learn more.
            Behe does not qualify, because of the lack of peer reviewed research published on biology related to evolution and genetics. The Lurch has revealed that you express to many opinions on the science you lack the knowledge to support your objections to the peer reviewed literature since your view is based on a religious ID agenda
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              =TheLurch]Also, could I ask whether you are aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
              No, I wasn't aware of that.
              You were referred to it here, here, here. You even replied to two of those. It's also been mentioned on at least 20 other threads here. So if you aren't aware of the Dunning-Kreuger effect, then either you don't make any effort to understand the posts you're replying to, or you did look it up once but have now forgotten all about it Dory-style, or both.
              Last edited by Roy; 11-15-2019, 06:58 AM.
              Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

              mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

              Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
              Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                Well, I wouldn't know what I am unaware of!
                I wasn't asking you to consider what you were unaware of. I was asking you to consider the fact that you are unaware of key information. What does that tell you about the quality of your understanding, and your ability to evaluate the arguments you've been reading?

                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                No, I wasn't aware of that.
                Well, it's kind of relevant here. If someone (including potentially you) is not informed about biology, they tend to come away with an exaggerated sense that they understand things, because they can't even recognize the limits of their knowledge. You would be confident that the arguments you favored were good even though your lack of understanding would make you just as likely to favor terrible arguments.

                Which brings us to this:
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                I've read books by biologists, by Behe in particular, and by Reasons to Believe, which address such issues, and am willing to read further, and discuss and learn more.
                So, just to be clear, you haven't just read these arguments; you favor them, despite the fact that they've been rejected by nearly every biologist out there. If you have Dunning-Kruger issues when it comes to biology, however, you're likely to favor them even though they're terrible.

                Given how often you seem to get things wrong, and the severe gaps in your knowledge that seem to pop up in every discussion you have here, i'd ask you to reconsider your confidence in the ideas you hold about biology. And i'd ask you to consider that it might be better to put your trust in the vast majority of biologists, rather than a handful of people who have stopped doing research and simply promote fringe opinions.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  So, just to be clear, you haven't just read these arguments; you favor them, despite the fact that they've been rejected by nearly every biologist out there. If you have Dunning-Kruger issues when it comes to biology, however, you're likely to favor them even though they're terrible.
                  Well, I find that the arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out. A little back history, I heard that Behe had been refuted, and I believed them, until I read his book. I found his arguments convincing.

                  Given how often you seem to get things wrong, and the severe gaps in your knowledge that seem to pop up in every discussion you have here...
                  "He who throws mud is losing ground."

                  When you're ready to answer my points, I'm ready to reply some more.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Well, I find that the arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out. A little back history, I heard that Behe had been refuted, and I believed them, until I read his book. I found his arguments convincing.
                    I seriously doubt if you ever believed Behe had been refuted, but nonetheless in the threads here on TWEB The Lurch has pretty much refuted completely. It helps that Behe has never published the scientific foundation and research for the support for his Book.


                    "He who throws mud is losing ground."
                    Than stop your manure chucking and come up with legitimate science.

                    When you're ready to answer my points, I'm ready to reply some more.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    The Lurch has successfully refuted all your points and demonstrated that you lack the basic knowledge to constructively respond.
                    The Dunning-Kreuger effect rules the Discovery Institute.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-15-2019, 10:33 PM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Well, I find that the arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out. A little back history, I heard that Behe had been refuted, and I believed them, until I read his book. I found his arguments convincing.
                      But you didn't read the refutations, right?.
                      Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                      mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                      Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                      Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Roy View Post
                        But you didn't read the refutations, right?.
                        I read Kenneth Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God".

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          I read Kenneth Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God".

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          So?!?!?! This is not science.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, I find that the arguments hold up pretty well when I try them out. A little back history, I heard that Behe had been refuted, and I believed them, until I read his book. I found his arguments convincing.
                            But you didn't read the refutations, right?.
                            I read Kenneth Miller's book, "Finding Darwin's God"
                            So you heard Behe had been refuted, but didn't bother to read the refutations.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Roy View Post
                              So you heard Behe had been refuted, but didn't bother to read the refutations.
                              Miller's FDG was written largely as a refutation to Behe, specifically his Darwin's Black Box

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                Let's take this quote, which seems to me to be hand waving. How does this demonstrate evolution of enzymes?

                                Blessings,
                                Lee
                                It would help that you would document your objections to the science of enzymes in evolution despite the many peer reviewed articles presented by The Lurch and others that gave a more than adequate explanation for the role of enzymes in evolution refuting every point you made with the vague assertions that it is "difficult?" without the supporting science,
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by TheLurch, Today, 07:40 AM
                                9 responses
                                20 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sherman
                                by Sherman
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 01-13-2021, 04:55 PM
                                5 responses
                                25 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-13-2021, 09:58 AM
                                13 responses
                                54 views
                                4 likes
                                Last Post TheLurch  
                                Started by TheLurch, 01-10-2021, 09:53 PM
                                3 responses
                                26 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Seeker
                                by Seeker
                                 
                                Started by lee_merrill, 01-04-2021, 10:50 PM
                                5 responses
                                53 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X