Jump to content


Photo

Does Gilbo Understand Evolution? Plus Logic Pretzel For Evos


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:05 AM

Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..

Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.

 

 

I've attended 4 years of Tertiary study in Biology, so I'm quite sure I do. I was the student who'd think outside the box and ask my lecturers the hard questions, many of whom admit they couldn't answer them. Here is one...

 

Within the cell there are signal proteins used to tag deformed / incorrectly folded proteins. The tagged proteins are recycled for parts. IF evolution is based on slight changes (mutations) over time then wouldn't the mutated proteins be tagged and sent for recycling?

 

My lecturer ummed and arred on this question and admitted that she didn't know. She still believed in evolution, but didn't know or want to know how evolution could fit within this issue....

 

However the beauty of this question is that natural selection has nothing to do with it... You cannot just say natural selection and that solves the issue because the cellular recycling system is programmed to do its job regardless of whether something may be beneficial or not. Honestly I cannot comprehend how Biologists who know this would still believe in evolution... Its as if they suspend knowledge of Biology and logic whenever discussing or thinking about evolution...
 

 

After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?

 

Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question ;)


  • Calypsis4, Enoch 2021 and Kairos2014 like this

#2 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:24 AM

Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..

Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.

 

 

 

After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?

 

Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question wink.png

 

The question you placed to your professor was absolutey A-1, gilbo. You dropped the atom bomb on her brain.

 

I can't wait until you get into the classroom as a professor so you can inflict as much damage possible on evolution in the minds of students who haven't been taught to critically think things through like you just demonstrated. It is so badly needed.

 

Best wishes.



#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 October 2014 - 05:41 AM

 

The question you placed to your professor was absolutey A-1, gilbo. You dropped the atom bomb on her brain.

 

I can't wait until you get into the classroom as a professor so you can inflict as much damage possible on evolution in the minds of students who haven't been taught to critically think things through like you just demonstrated. It is so badly needed.

 

Best wishes.

 

Thanks Calypsis

Yeah its one of the reasons why I wanted to get into teaching. Here is a related quote I found it a week ago ;)

 

“Five percent of the people think;
ten percent of the people think they think;
and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think.”
Thomas A. Edison


#4 cheeseburger

cheeseburger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Western Canada

Posted 07 October 2014 - 06:11 AM

My understanding is that Alzheimer's and Parkinson's arise due to inadequacies in the degradation system's ability to handle misfolded proteins. Furthermore, proteasomes and chaperone proteins could themselves be susceptible to mutation and compromise

#5 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 07 October 2014 - 08:05 AM

Dataforge has made the claim that 100% of Creationists do not understand evolution... This was made off the back of his claim that Creationists define evolution as a monkey giving birth to a human.

He has yet to provide evidence for this claim, rather he has simply given his own opinions on what others may (or may not) have told him. Without actual evidence of what Dataforge was told, there is no way to be sure if whether his opinions actually mean anything..

Regardless, I attempted to demonstrate my knowledge of evolution coming from my studies in my Bachelor of Biotechnology (Honors), here is the quote.
 
 
 
After being presented with this evidence Dataforge insisted I create a new thread... Not sure why since all he'd have to do is admit that perhaps I do know about evolution based on my tertiary studies, perhaps he wants to debate my credentials?
 
Additionally there is a logic pretzel for the evolutionists within the quote. If my question can stump a Professor in Biochemistry then I am confident its a good question ;)


What's funny is, while I was an evolutionist, my thinking was very close to the "monkey==>human" line. It was after I became a creationist that I learned what evolution actually was, and realized how ridiculous it is!

#6 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 07 October 2014 - 08:07 AM

My understanding is that Alzheimer's and Parkinson's arise due to inadequacies in the degradation system's ability to handle misfolded proteins. Furthermore, proteasomes and chaperone proteins could themselves be susceptible to mutation and compromise


So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?
  • gilbo12345 and Enoch 2021 like this

#7 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,135 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 07 October 2014 - 08:15 AM

What's funny is, while I was an evolutionist, my thinking was very close to the "monkey==>human" line. It was after I became a creationist that I learned what evolution actually was, and realized how ridiculous it is!

 

Monkey ==> human, FC?  I don't believe that is what the current theory says.



#8 FaithfulCenturion

FaithfulCenturion

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 883 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • New York

Posted 07 October 2014 - 09:52 AM

 
Monkey ==> human, FC?  I don't believe that is what the current theory says.


Not saying it is. I'm saying when I was an evolutionist, that's what I thought. I've grown so much since becoming a creationist. :)
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 October 2014 - 06:14 PM

My understanding is that Alzheimer's and Parkinson's arise due to inadequacies in the degradation system's ability to handle misfolded proteins. Furthermore, proteasomes and chaperone proteins could themselves be susceptible to mutation and compromise

 

Great :)

 

So the times when the system doesn't recycle proteins, (as in the only time evolution would be able to occur), it leads to defects...

 

The warning bells should be ringing by now.

 

How can you believe in a process which in order to work requires the organism to be functioning defectively? Wouldn't natural selection select against such?

 

 

 

So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?

 

crazyguy.gif

 

Well they are change aren't they? One of the evolutionists definition of evolution is simply "change" so I guess that could fit ;)

 

 

 

Not saying it is. I'm saying when I was an evolutionist, that's what I thought. I've grown so much since becoming a creationist. smile.png

 

I can say the same :) It was only when I researched more and went into the "nuts and bolts" of evolution did I lose my belief in it.


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#10 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 07 October 2014 - 11:08 PM

Hmmm, topics as understanding the workings of natural selection, the supposed goal of evolution and the actions a person who believes in evokution comes to mind...

#11 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 October 2014 - 08:05 AM

Hmmm, topics as understanding the workings of natural selection, the supposed goal of evolution and the actions a person who believes in evokution comes to mind...

 

Can you address the points presented in the thread?



#12 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 08 October 2014 - 09:40 AM

That is something you called upon yourself when you where so arrogant to make the topic title..

Hypothesis by dataforge:
Creationists do not understand evolution theory.
Disprooven when at least one creationist understands evolution theory.

Hypothesis by gilbo:
I am that creationist.
Disprooven when it is shown at least some aspects of evolution theory are not understood by gilbo. Not by going into detail about something Gilbo does understand. Or where he posesses greater knowledge then some.

Disproof provided with mention of specific topics Gilbo does not understand. Note that these are not some highly detailed topics, but rather thr general idea, order of magnitude monkeys to men.

#13 nmp9463

nmp9463

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Grand Rapids, MI

Posted 08 October 2014 - 01:33 PM

 

Great smile.png

 

So the times when the system doesn't recycle proteins, (as in the only time evolution would be able to occur), it leads to defects...

 

The warning bells should be ringing by now.

 

How can you believe in a process which in order to work requires the organism to be functioning defectively? Wouldn't natural selection select against such?

 

Actually, I think cheeseburger has a decent point. And your attack on these protiens wasn't a good one either as  microevolution shows that mutations and defects get by fairly regularly.



#14 driewerf

driewerf

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 08 October 2014 - 02:26 PM

So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?

No but they are examples of wrongly folded proteins that go unchecked. They therefor invalidated Gilbo's argument.

#15 Dataforge

Dataforge

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 October 2014 - 04:27 PM

As promised I'll respond here:

 

Can you go into a little more detail about your argument?

 

How many mutations are sent for recycling? All of them? Some of them? Most of them?

 

If not all of them, is there a particular type of mutations that are recycled, or is it just a random assortment of mutations?



#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 October 2014 - 06:46 PM

Actually, I think cheeseburger has a decent point. And your attack on these protiens wasn't a good one either as  microevolution shows that mutations and defects get by fairly regularly.

 

As FC said

"So are you saying alzheimers and parkinsons are examples of evolution?"

 

They do get through but that is due to a deficiency in the recycling system... Which is detrimental and leads to other issues...

 

 

So in order to have evolution you need.

 

1- a beneficial mutation which has no detrimental side-effects

2- a break-down in the protein recycling system which (somehow) doesn't cause detrimental effects

3- a signal system tailored to the new mutations change in functionality (how does the signal system "evolve" before the new function occurs? How can the new function be utilized before there is a proper signal system?... Chicken and the Egg problem).

 

 

No but they are examples of wrongly folded proteins that go unchecked. They therefor invalidated Gilbo's argument.

 

READ my response please... Here it is so it isn't ignored...

 

Great smile.png

 

So the times when the system doesn't recycle proteins, (as in the only time evolution would be able to occur), it leads to defects...

 

The warning bells should be ringing by now.

 

How can you believe in a process which in order to work requires the organism to be functioning defectively? Wouldn't natural selection select against such?

 

 

 

As promised I'll respond here:

 

Can you go into a little more detail about your argument?

 

How many mutations are sent for recycling? All of them? Some of them? Most of them?

 

If not all of them, is there a particular type of mutations that are recycled, or is it just a random assortment of mutations?

 

The system is designed to seek out all wrongly folded or formed proteins and recycle them. The cell has no need for ill-manufactured goods.

When the system breaks down only then can wrongly folded or formed proteins get past the system.... Hence leading to disease... So the only time evolution would work is when you have a breakdown of the system which is a detriment.

 

 

 

That is something you called upon yourself when you where so arrogant to make the topic title..

 

What is "this"...

 

How is asking a question about myself arrogant?

 

 

 

Hypothesis by dataforge:
Creationists do not understand evolution theory.
Disprooven when at least one creationist understands evolution theory.

 

Yup and it is disproven (one o mate :) ).

 

I've attended tertiary study with a large percentage of my topics relating to evolution... IF I didn't understand evolution I wouldn't have been able to get the grades I did in those topics.

 

Ergo Dataforge is disproven by my very existence..

 

 

 

Hypothesis by gilbo:
I am that creationist.

 

Huh? So my stating I am a Creationist is a hypothesis? I thought it was a statement of who I am and what I believe...
 

 

Disprooven when it is shown at least some aspects of evolution theory are not understood by gilbo. Not by going into detail about something Gilbo does understand. Or where he posesses greater knowledge then some.

 

So its disproven when I don't understand or when I possess greater knowledge (meaning I do understand) ergo either way you claim it is disproven...

 

Seriously you're making no sense here.

 

 

 

Disproof provided with mention of specific topics Gilbo does not understand. Note that these are not some highly detailed topics, but rather thr general idea, order of magnitude monkeys to men.

 

Where was this mentioned? What specific topics?

 

If you want to claim I don't understand something I'd very much like to see the evidence for such.


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#17 Dataforge

Dataforge

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 307 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 October 2014 - 07:44 PM

The system is designed to seek out all wrongly folded or formed proteins and recycle them. The cell has no need for ill-manufactured goods.

When the system breaks down only then can wrongly folded or formed proteins get past the system.... Hence leading to disease... So the only time evolution would work is when you have a breakdown of the system which is a detriment.

 

Okay, but what makes a protein wrongly or correctly folded or formed? Will all mutations make a wrongly folded or formed protein, or only some mutations? If not all mutations, then is there a particular type of mutation that more often results in a wrongly formed or folded protein?



#18 nnjamerson

nnjamerson

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 08 October 2014 - 08:00 PM

Posted 09 October 2014 - 02:44 AM

gilbo12345, on 09 Oct 2014 - 02:46 AM, said:snapback.png

The system is designed to seek out all wrongly folded or formed proteins and recycle them. The cell has no need for ill-manufactured goods.

When the system breaks down only then can wrongly folded or formed proteins get past the system.... Hence leading to disease... So the only time evolution would work is when you have a breakdown of the system which is a detriment.

 

 

 

Okay, but what makes a protein wrongly or correctly folded or formed? Will all mutations make a wrongly folded or formed protein, or only some mutations? If not all mutations, then is there a particular type of mutation that more often results in a wrongly formed or folded protein?

 

Indeed! There's a huge range of outcomes possible in a mature protein from any mutation/s, and often a huge tolerance and adaptability in such 'error checking' machinery. If we're talking point mutations that change a single amino acid, such changes can have net zero effect on the folding of the protein and/or on aspects of physiochemistry like buoyancy, hydrophobicity, mass etc. .. all aspects that such 'systems for seeking out wrongly formed or folded proteins' might be optimised to detect ... but that single amino acid change caused by a point mutation can for example have massive difference in chemical charge (ie ionic properties), and when the mature  protein escapes past the 'system seeking wrong etc', then it can have a very different set of interactions with other proteins in the cell environment or the external environment. 
 
Long story short, a point mutation can have a vast number of possible effects on a resultant protein, many of which will simply bypass past the 'error checking systems' undetected, or be of a tolerable degree of error that they're either ignored or some copies are ignored, enough to escape into the environment and for natural selection to act upon.
 


#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 October 2014 - 04:08 AM

A protein's structure is the basis for its function ergo improper folding is very much a big problem.

 

In order to have a new function "evolve" the protein would need to be folded so incorrectly in order to be able to perform said new function, hence it would be picked up on by the system.

 

Essentially with this system in place you cannot have a function "evolving" into a different function since by the time the changes are noticeable to affect the protein structure, (and thus its function), it would be removed.


  • NewPath likes this

#20 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 04 November 2014 - 02:36 PM

This response is to the OP "pretzel" and precedes my reading of the responses--so that I don't get influenced by them.

Does the question imply that it is known that mutated proteins are not tagged and sent for recycling?

Without regard to that: one of the change mechanisms of the theory is the one that is the subject of your question. With regard to this one mechanism, a mutated protein is one category or some very large set of categories within which a vast number of possibilities of biologically plausible mutations may be considered for some or another cell. Please note that I didn't write "vast number of conceivable".

You have used the very broad designation for your subject, "the cell". Is your question confined to some particular form that you have not made explicit? What cells, where, when and under what precise conditions? Did "these cells"--you identified a collective with "the cell"--exist ever or is it an abstract consideration? Note that the cells must have been present at some time prior to "present-day complex life" for your question to have any bearing on the theory.

In the end, your question presumes your present-day "the cell" is not the end result of whatever biological 'Evolution' had occurred over Earth's history. In other words, the process of tagging/recycling may not have been an issue during whatever occurred from "first-life" to present-day "the cell": that the present-day "the cell" may actually tag mutations for recycling into perpetuity.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users