The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

originally posted by: cooperton
So DNA was a given? Ok we'll give you that, but only based on faith. So, how did it replicate without transcription, translation, and regulation (all 3 are required to make the proteins that replicate DNA)

Yes, DNA is a given in evolution, just like life existing. They are prerequisites, not part of the evolutionary process. This is something the religious extremists on here have a lot of trouble grasping for some reason. They just don't understand the difference between evolution and the origin of life, 2 vastly different concepts.

Evolution does not address how the first DNA molecule arose, it addresses how life changes over time. The questions the OP has asked and others are mostly about DNA origins, which refers to an unproven hypothesis called "abiogenesis" NOT the scientifically verified theory of evolution.

They are completely different things, yet the OP equates them and suggests that if you can't prove abiogenesis (something we know is not yet proven) that evolution must also be wrong. It doesn't work like that. That's like asking somebody to prove gravity before accepting that the sky appears blue.

The fact that the OP has ignored this point multiple times, speaks volumes.

It takes more than arbitrary questions to debunk evolution. But it's usual for these religious fanatics to flat out ignore anything that could possibly conflict with their faith based belief system and keep the unnecessary war on science and evolution going.

a reply to: neoholographic

How do you feel about what Franklin M. Harold referred to as "wishful speculations" (Michael Behe: "just-so stories"; me: and maybe-so stories, and a whole bunch of other words that apply, myths/false stories, unverified philosophies/ideas, neurotic speculations, etc.) at the moment being published in so-called "peer reviewed" articles which then get used by people like Krazysh0t as a 'magic stick of truth'; 'science' has been woven, what he perceives or implies is science that is. Your questions are supposedly answered, regardless if they were correctly phrased or not to adress the real issue:

Why should we believe the Lac operon evolved by a process of mutations acted upon by natural selection over multiple generations of living organisms and ignore the logical and correct conclusion* by inductive reasoning that it was designed that way, arguing from what we know, not what we want, such as the desire of some to believe that 'nature did it'/'it evolved'?

* = that itself stands as a "certain Truth" (using Newton's slightly redundant use of those words for clarity) as long as there are "no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths." If hypotheses already aren't enough to challenge this conclusion, certainly illogical maybe-so stories that only sound plausible to a biased reader won't do. Of course they still have great propagandistic effects on the majority, especially those who are biased and want to belief this stuff over "established facts". (quoting from the Encyclopaedia Britannica)

The reasoning behing the conclusion of design I spoke about in this comment is much better and in more detail explained by Michael Behe in the first part of his presentation. Keyphrase: "the functional arrangement of parts". Cause my commentary about it is scattered now over the thread.

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you have a ghost writer doing the heavy lifting for you or what? I was referring your OP. That's what the basis of this entire thread is and you've been around ATS to know how this works. Your OP is the basis and premise of your argument. This is what I was referring to when I called you out for demanding others reply in their own words instead of providing supporting citations. Your hypocrisy is bewildering considering the entire OP was someone else's words.

Just because you opted to move the goal posts for another 16 pages doesn't mean that your initial premise wasn't cribbed entirely from Sanford. This thread is a joke and your own knowledge of the subject matter is nearly nonexistent.

a reply to: peter vlar

What???

Do you know how a debate works?

First, you haven't responded or refuted any evidence presented. Not in the OP or any other post in this thread. You just complained about Sanford writing a book after he retired. That's the sum of your posts so far on this thread. Others have managed to try and debate the mountains of evidence presented in this thread but the sum of your knowledge or lack thereof is complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.

There's no need to move the goal post with you because you haven't debated anything. You make these vacuous statements that are meaningless as it pertains to the evidence presented in this thread.

Just look at all your post. They're devoid of any meaning or any debate. Your knowledge is non existent in this area because you haven't said one thing as it pertains to the information presented in this thread.

So you have 2 extremes

FIRST EXTREME

Krazyshot tries to answer questions by posting links to 40 page PDF's and then saying go fish.

SECOND EXTREME

peter vlar says there's no evidence presented on this thread and he provides nothing but complaints about a Scientist writing a book after retirement

Which is it?

Did Krazyshot try to answer non existing evidence or did peter vlar recognize that he couldn't debate or refute any of these things so he gave us a bunch of nonsense?

Both show they have no answers to these questions.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: peter vlar

Oh, how the hypocrisy and projection burns! Check out this post and to add to the lie, four members "knee jerked" and gave it stars.

It's the epitome of irony when proponents of YEC are doing just that, shoring up their own faith, with this "book" with an added 'appeal to authority' fallacy thrown in for good measure. It's par for the course at this point.

I have seen nothing proven, just more sensationalism and knee jerk reactions from those who need their respective faiths shored up by these reports. Its not the first study and wont be the last, they might even prove something one day, who knows One thing proven is that some will grasp at straws.
Enjoy your life Barcs, I doesnt bother me

I think it's hilarious these creationist are accusing atheist of having faith in science or atheism as a religion!? Like deep down they know religion is a bad idea.
If atheism is a religion then when can I claim exempt on my taxes?

They already accuse us of it so we might as well start an atheist church and claim tax exemptions. I can write off the property taxes on my house...errr temple to evolution.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar

What???

Do you know how a debate works?

Yes, they occur in the debate forum. This is a discussion forum.

First, you haven't responded or refuted any evidence presented. Not in the OP or any other post in this thread. You just complained about Sanford writing a book after he retired. That's the sum of your posts so far on this thread. Others have managed to try and debate the mountains of evidence presented in this thread but the sum of your knowledge or lack thereof is complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.

Nobody has touched mountains of evidence in this thread because it hasn't been presented. You share a lot of conjecture and hyperbole but not mountains of evidence.

There's no need to move the goal post with you because you haven't debated anything. You make these vacuous statements that are meaningless as it pertains to the evidence presented in this thread.

There isn't anything to debate.

Just look at all your post. They're devoid of any meaning or any debate. Your knowledge is non existent in this area because you haven't said one thing as it pertains to the information presented in this thread.

There's no reason to dignify your diarrhea thread with taking the time to dissect your tirades against science. Because that's all they are, tirades, not evidence. You want a dialogue of substance, then you need to post something of substance. I've done this more years than I can count with/against people who actually understand the science and I've done it against people with much more education than I have. You've got nothing on any of them. I avoided this dung pile for 15 or 16 pages on purpose. I shod have continued down that path.

So you have 2 extremes

FIRST EXTREME

Krazyshot tries to answer questions by posting links to 40 page PDF's and then saying go fish.

SECOND EXTREME

peter vlar says there's no evidence presented on this thread and he provides nothing but complaints about a Scientist writing a book after retirement

One mans complaint about a retired asst. prof writing a fictitious novel is another mans legitimate question about why a highly regarded professional in genetics with over 70 peer reviewed papers under his belt decided that he was just going to market this data to people who already believe the nonsense instead of producing the data for others to attempt to reproduce. If you don't think that is a valid question, it explains a lot.

Which is it?

Did Krazyshot try to answer non existing evidence or did peter vlar recognize that he couldn't debate or refute any of these things so he gave us a bunch of nonsense?

Both show they have no answers to these questions.

Not quite. Both have answered the same retarded questions dozens of times in dozens of threads based on the same YEC nonsense. That you post this crap and think you've got some new "Eureka Moment" of revelation regarding the failings of science is pathetic.

a reply to: neoholographic

John C. Sanford is a young earth creationist. He has a horse in the race. He has a degree in horticulture, which is indeed better than the majority of young earth creationists, an actual scientist. However he seems to either be disingenuous, or incompetent with his "genetic entropy" idea. Here are some of the reasons why:

(a) It is an overly simplistic model, and none are supported by emperical evidence. What this means is he has made a model with no evidence.

(b) He uses a flawed definition of "fitness" . For example, what is "fit" in one set of conditions, is unfit in another.

(c) He either chooses to not understand, or willfully ignores the importance of mutations in adaption (which is what evolution is, and how it happens).

The fun thing about his "model" is that it can easily be refuted by Gene duplication (it increases information). It is well documented too.

So no, Sanford is not asking questions to prove your "big lie", he is someone who seems to be ignoring the very basics of science, to prove a conclusion, before he has the evidence. That is NOT science. Indeed it breaks all the rules.

a reply to: whereislogic

You said:

Why should we believe the Lac operon evolved by a process of mutations acted upon by natural selection over multiple generations of living organisms and ignore the logical and correct conclusion* by inductive reasoning that it was designed that way, arguing from what we know, not what we want, such as the desire of some to believe that 'nature did it'/'it evolved'?

This is a very good question.

This is something that they can't respond to as we learn more about Gene Regulation and expression. For instance, look at the recent study that showed the difference between chimpanzees and humans isn't found in the DNA sequence but in gene regulation.

This is why I have talking about gene regulation, expression, transcription, translation and more throughout this thread. It's a key issue that blows any notion of evolution without intelligent agency out of the water.

It started when opponents predicted junk DNA would have functionality opposed to many Darwinist who pushed this as junk. This was seen recently in a debate where the proponents of evolution were destroyed.



Here's more about the chimpanzee study:

The research team lead by Georgia Tech Professor of Biology John McDonald has verified that while the DNA sequence of genes between humans and chimpanzees is nearly identical, there are large genomic "gaps" in areas adjacent to genes that can affect the extent to which genes are "turned on" and "turned off." The research shows that these genomic "gaps" between the two species are predominantly due to the insertion or deletion (INDEL) of viral-like sequences called retrotransposons that are known to comprise about half of the genomes of both species. The findings are reported in the most recent issue of the online, open-access journal Mobile DNA.

"These genetic gaps have primarily been caused by the activity of retroviral-like transposable element sequences," said McDonald. "Transposable elements were once considered 'junk DNA' with little or no function. Now it appears that they may be one of the major reasons why we are so different from chimpanzees."

www.sciencedaily.com...

It's about insertion and deletion which act as on and off switches in regions of DNA. So it's like we share the same chords with chimps but we play very different music.

Chimps are playing Mary Had a Little Lamb while Humans are playing Mozart or Rachmaninoff. A natural interpretation of evolution can't turn Mary Had a Little Lamb into Mozart. It's just silly to even think it can.

You can see the frustration in this thread from people who blindly support evolution. Evidence is presented but never refuted or responded to.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: peter vlar

What???

Do you know how a debate works?

First, you haven't responded or refuted any evidence presented. Not in the OP or any other post in this thread. You just complained about Sanford writing a book after he retired. That's the sum of your posts so far on this thread. Others have managed to try and debate the mountains of evidence presented in this thread but the sum of your knowledge or lack thereof is complaining about a Scientist writing a book after retirement.

There's no need to move the goal post with you because you haven't debated anything. You make these vacuous statements that are meaningless as it pertains to the evidence presented in this thread.

Just look at all your post. They're devoid of any meaning or any debate. Your knowledge is non existent in this area because you haven't said one thing as it pertains to the information presented in this thread.

So you have 2 extremes

FIRST EXTREME

Krazyshot tries to answer questions by posting links to 40 page PDF's and then saying go fish.

SECOND EXTREME

peter vlar says there's no evidence presented on this thread and he provides nothing but complaints about a Scientist writing a book after retirement

Which is it?

Did Krazyshot try to answer non existing evidence or did peter vlar recognize that he couldn't debate or refute any of these things so he gave us a bunch of nonsense?

Both show they have no answers to these questions.

Hey you want to debate? I've asked multiple times for someone to debate this topic in the debate forum - moderated of course.
Are you game?

originally posted by: lawman27
My brother is a geneticist and is working on designer viruses. But, if only God can create life, he must be a god. That's going to be great when he next visits-all I accomplished this year was a promotion at work.

I don't know of any spiritual text that says only God can create life - everyone's mom and dad created life. Also, viruses are arguably not alive (although I think they are). Congrats on promotion.

originally posted by: Barcs

Yes, DNA is a given in evolution, just like life existing. They are prerequisites, not part of the evolutionary process. This is something the religious extremists on here have a lot of trouble grasping for some reason. They just don't understand the difference between evolution and the origin of life, 2 vastly different concepts.

It seems you are struggling with the theory you claim to know so well... RNA is theorized, according to popular evolutionary theory, to have preceded the advent of DNA. But in your defense, it's all wrong anyway

originally posted by: cooperton
None of your articles give an explanation involving a simultaneous evolution of all of the 4 required mechanisms (reproduction, translation, transcription, and regulation). The articles you presented are filibusters at best. They cannot explain the blatant impossibility of evolving all 4 of these major requirements for a sustainable living organism.

Don't forget the folding of proteins, it's "essential" for the "intended" function of proteins (and the cell membrane with all the mechanisms for protection from the environment whith various mechanisms letting in the exact right material of different shapes and sizes and keeping out what's not wanted or even damaging to the cell, repair and maintenance systems and machinery, cause an organism isn't going to survive long without those either, no survival and you can forget about passing on anything to evolve, and a whole bunch of other requirements for a reproducing living organism that even gets the chance to mutate and pass on its genes). See quote regarding "essential" and "intended" below:



Then there is the ATP synthase machine to consider as a basic minimal requirement for a living reproducing organism, which provides the powersource or fuel for any of the machinery to do anything:



All of these videos are evidence/proof(s) for design and the process of designing (and engineering and programming or encoding). And that's where the denial kicks in pretending that that's not a logical correct conclusion and that it's somehow either an assumption or god of the gaps/argument from ignorance. Because certain people have made people forget about how inductive reasoning works and how sure you can be of the conclusions when you apply it correctly to established facts (and follow the evidence where it leads as Michael Behe would say).

originally posted by: whereislogic

Don't forget the folding of proteins, it's "crucial" for the function of proteins (and the cell membrane with all the mechanisms for protection from the environment whith various mechanisms letting in the exact right material of different shapes and sizes and keeping out what's not wanted or even damaging to the cell, repair and maintenance systems and machinery, cause an organism isn't going to survive long without those either, no survival and you can forget about passing on anything to evolve, and a whole bunch of other requirements for a reproducing living organism that even gets the chance to mutate and pass on its genes). See quote regarding "crucial" below:

Yup. Also, some sort of casing, such as the lipid bilayer, would be required to separate the living entity from its environment. Now with that also in requirement, you need the various proteins embedded in said membrane to stabilize it and also allow nutrient exchange - this also requiring genes to code for the proteins. Let's start compiling a list of things that would have all needed to be in the first viable cell:

1) reproduction
2) translation
3) transcription
4) regulation
5) encapsulation
6) transportation

Ahh, can't forget
7) metabolism

Perhaps we will find a protein that can do all this... we'll call it "DNA+RNA polymerase ATP synthase Complex I,II,III,IV Transcriptase Operon Dehydrogenase"-ase. Ahh, I hope this doesn't make me sound like a total ase. Any further questions?

Without evolution, please offer an explanation for the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in algae and plants. Why are their genomes nearly identical to alpha-proteobacteria (mitochondria) and cyanobacteria (chloroplasts)? Why are the proteins involved in respiration and photosynthesis in these organelles homologous to their bacterial counterparts? Why do chloroplasts divide the same (binary fission) as bacteria and contain many unique cyanobacterial specific division factors that are found in no other bacteria or eukaryotes? Why do mitochondria and chloroplasts possess bacterial-specific cytoskeletal elements (FtsZ, Min proteins, FtsH, FtsI, etc...)? Why do chloroplasts contain bacterial ribosomes and not eukaryotic? Why are their membranes chemically more similar to bacteria instead of eukaryotes?

Photosynthetic plants and algae would not be here today without the ancient event whereby a heterotrophic eukaryotic organism engulfed and retained a photosynthetic cyanobacterium. This is evolution, supported with an overwhelming amount of data.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Stooping to childish ad hominem insults...

Ah yes, but it's perfectly fine when you're doing it regarding the ones interviewed in that documentary that are saying things that aren't tickling your ears right?

Your name does reduce your credibility for me when I see it, along with the many posts and many stars. It also makes me reluctant to reply to your comments. You are well described in the bible. Luring me into saying something about it in response to your disdain for the video I shared and then accusing me of making the ad hominem insults you were making and are continuously making in your comments to influence people's emotions here and to guide their thinking away from rational logical thoughts. Next up, probably making fun of me mentioning that you are well described in the bible and warping people's thoughts about that so that they'll never read the verses I mentioned in a comment earlier, or was that already thoroughly dismissed and covered by the other comments about the bible here?

2 Timothy 4:3,4
Eccl. 1:9
1 Timothy 6:20
Colossians 2:8
Isaiah 5:20,21

Romans 1:20 sums up the argument and evidence for design assuming the reader still knows how inductive reasoning works.

You were just trying to distract from the point why I shared that video at 1:30 to go on your tirade against it (twice). And yes, those links you used are clearly propagandistic and in favor of beefing up evolutionary philosophies. Then blame me for confirmation bias when you simply don't even want to consider it or give a logical argument as to why we should believe that stuff (where it's one long capitalization on the ambiguity of language, most notably the word "evolution"). The first link is filled with switches in how they use the word "evolution" and pretend any type of mutations or changes equals evolution (which to some people is referring to macroevolution as well as the philosophies regarding common descent). The usual drug resistance routine that also isn't evolution in the sense of macroevolution or called "Darwinian evolution" by Shapiro in my quotations that you're conveniently ignoring. And then pretend that knowledge about how drug resistances work acquired by careful experimentation and observations equals that vague usage of the word "evolution", therefore "understanding evolution can make a big difference". And on and on it goes with switches and using the word evolution to vaguely refer to some kind of change that has been observed, as if that's evolution (yeah, convenient if you just match your definition or usage of the word with it and leave out the claims regarding macroevolution, which have not led to any breakthoughs in the field of medicine and is not required to know when practicing medicine).

And the whole initial argument of yours that started it off was one big red herring anyway.

originally posted by: jsm318
Without evolution, please offer an explanation for the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in algae and plants.

That's like telling me to explain the existence of a motor in a car: It was intelligently designed. (mitochondria is the equivalent to a motor in a cell)

Why are their genomes nearly identical to alpha-proteobacteria (mitochondria) and cyanobacteria (chloroplasts)? Why are the proteins involved in respiration and photosynthesis in these organelles homologous to their bacterial counterparts? Why do chloroplasts divide the same (binary fission) as bacteria and contain many unique cyanobacterial specific division factors that are found in no other bacteria or eukaryotes? Why do mitochondria and chloroplasts possess bacterial-specific cytoskeletal elements (FtsZ, Min proteins, FtsH, FtsI, etc...)? Why do chloroplasts contain bacterial ribosomes and not eukaryotic? Why are their membranes chemically more similar to bacteria instead of eukaryotes? Photosynthetic plants and algae would not be here today without the ancient event whereby a heterotrophic eukaryotic organism engulfed and retained a photosynthetic cyanobacterium. This is evolution, supported with an overwhelming amount of data.

None of this disproves an intelligent designer. if anything, the intuitive patterns exhibited in life are indicative of an intelligently designed genetic code. But, I will forfeit that opinion, and settle with the fact that these patterns prove neither argument.

a reply to: neoholographic

Once again you post a video, and expect that to be taken as actual evidence, and post a news article about a paper, but not the actual paper. Have you read the paper? I keep asking you this, because I have read it, and it does not show what you want it too.

So we're just going to act like we haven't gone through all of this song and dance with several other members in the recent past? People throwing their ignorance out like bait on a line and reeling the crowd in, then laughing when we shower pearls on them on command. Didn't work the first 100 times, won't work this time. Give the pearls a rest.

a reply to: Noinden

Try here to find the article. Go on actually rad it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Some of us are impelled to reply. For me it is part of my spiritual path viz an fhírinne a insint

originally posted by: jsm318
Photosynthetic plants and algae would not be here today without the ancient event whereby a heterotrophic eukaryotic organism engulfed and retained a photosynthetic cyanobacterium. This is evolution, supported with an overwhelming amount of data.

Please do share this experiment where a mythological unspecified "heterotrophic eukaryotic organism engulfed and retained a" mythological unspecified "photosynthetic cyanobacterium"? This time with exact specifications as to which exact organisms are being experimented on rather than a generic name grouping all of the different varieties together and a reference to an "overwhelming amount of data" that apparently doesn't seem to include specifics or you don't want to share them with us. Also take note that the organisms being experimented on must be the same organisms that are claimed to be part of this mythological event in the past, not pointing to some other organism and then claiming that since that organism can do it, therefore, some unknown eukaryotic organism did it (engulfed and retained). Allthough I'd still be interested in knowing if any eukaryotic organism can engulf and retain a photosynthetic cyanobacterium (and with retain I also understand that to mean incorporate it in his own genome and pass it on for the next generation so you get what you're arguing for).